Obama Helping to Ban Historical Reenactments of 1889 Land Rush in Oklahoma Because it’s ‘Racist’

Once again the far, far leftists that infest our schools are making to destroy the teaching of American history. This time it is in Oklahoma, home to the 1889 “Land Rush” that helped settle the great western region of the country. The un-American leftists that run Oklahoma’s schools now want to excise the teaching of the Land Rush history in schools because it’s “racist.” And the Obama administration is also behind it.

The 1889 Land Rush is a key part of Oklahoma history and is one of the things it is most known for. If you are a little shaky on the history, in 1889 Oklahoma was still thought of as “Indian Territory” and few white settlements existed there. But in 1889 the government opened a few large sections of the soon-to-be state and after setting a day when those areas would be open for purchase, a race of sorts began to fill the territory with new settlers seeking land for homes, businesses and towns. It was quite a national spectacle at the time and is an important part of the state’s history.

It is such an important part of the state’s history that for decades school children have been reenacting the Land Rush for history class. Sometimes the schools have special days dedicated to the period often including a time when the kids go outside and reenact the Land Rush. It has been an integral part of kids’ history classwork in the state nearly since the Land Rush ended.

But now leftists assisted by the Obama administration are trying to stop schools from engaging in the traditional celebration and teaching of the Land Rush period of the state’s history and the reason they are trying to destroy this tradition is because they claim it is “racist” toward the American Indian population.

According to news station KFOR, one district recently eliminated its Land Rush unit after a visit from representatives from the White House. “They were trying to see what it’s like to be a Native American student in Oklahoma City Public Schools,” the news station noted.

The claims by Obama and his minions is that the Land Rush displaced Indians, but that isn’t exactly true as the areas settled by the Rush were areas that various tribes had already given up to the federal government.

So, once again, we see historical revisionism coursing through the schools backed by anti-American sentiment and aimed at making Americans ashamed of our history.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Eric Holder out of touch?
  • GarandFan

    ‘History” is what King Barack says it is.

  • jim_m

    People who don’t know where they came from are unable to defend who they are. That is the real goal of the left. Once you un-moor Americans from their history they become easy to manipulate

  • If people really want to teach kids about the land rush, they’d tell kids about the law-breaking cheaters who snuck into Oklahoma Territory before they had permission from the U.S. government to enter. Those law-breaking cheaters were Oklahoma’s first illegal immigrants, but back then they weren’t called “illegal immigrants”. Instead, they were called “Sooners”.

    • Commander_Chico

      I did not know that’s where Sooners came from, thanks.

    • ND52

      It’s impossible to immigrate illegally within one’s own country.

      • Brucehenry

        Figure of speech

        • ND52

          Nope. Absolute fact.

          • Brucehenry


            Yes it’s an absolute fact that one cannot be an illegal immigrant within one’s own country. David’s use of the term “illegal immigrant” was a figure of speech. Everyone except literal-minded blockheads knew what he meant.

          • ND52

            Can’t make your point using reason and logic? No worries, there’s always name calling and childish behavior.

          • Brucehenry

            I pointed out, kindly enough, that David was using a figure of speech. You chose to demonstrate literal-minded blockheadedness. Don’t blame me for your embarrassment. I was trying to help you out.

          • ND52

            Too late to backtrack now.

          • Brucehenry

            Who’s backtracking? I absolutely stand by my judgement that you are a literal-minded blockhead.

          • ND52

            And you respond with more name-calling. Lol! Quite the troll you are.

          • Brucehenry

            OK Dude, do you have any other comment to make, yourself, about the substance of the article? Or David’s point about the Sooners and their illegal behavior?

            Or should I apologize for hurting your delicate feelings? OK, I apologize for hurting your delicate feelings.

          • ND52

            I’ll say whatever I feel like saying on here. I hate to break it to you but you’re not moderating the discussion here.


          • Brucehenry

            Point taken.

            As will I. And when someone fails to see an obvious figure of speech as opposed to an assertion of fact, I may choose to gently point it out to him. And if he persists I may call him a literal-minded blockhead, sorry.

          • Vagabond661

            Gee you jumped in Jim’s shit yesterday for name calling a newbie.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I know but I first pointed out it was only a figure of speech. He chose to make an issue of it. Also it slays me he is so shocked — SHOCKED — that there is name-calling here, but if you check his Disqus profile he’s no stranger to it himself. Not the case with Jim’s newbie.

          • jim_m


          • Brucehenry

            I guess that’s fair. I did give the guy a chance though. You didn’t.

          • jim_m

            Hey, just own it. Not everyone deserves to be treated with kid gloves.

          • Brucehenry

            Some deserve it less than others, and to a greater or lesser degree.

          • jim_m

            Don’t be so hard on yourself.

          • Patrick Eugene Thomas

            The point is that it was not their country.

    • jim_m

      While it is true that these areas were not yet states they were considered to be US territories and therefore these were not immigrant of any sort but only squatters. And while it may be a figure of speech, given the current claims of illegals, it is poorly chosen as what the sooners did and what the illegals are doing are very different things.

  • Sky__Captain

    I, for one, just can’t wait until the amateurs in the 0bama Administration figure out what the origin of the word “Oklahoma” is. They will have quite the liberal hissy-fit, and will insist the state change it’s name.

    • jim_m

      I thought it was named after the musical.

  • Folks, it was illegal for the Sooners to go into Oklahoma Territory and claim land prior to the start of the land run. So, yes, the Sooners were illegal immigrants. One can immigrate from one region of a nation to another region within the same nation.

    • jim_m

      No David. That would be like saying that a US citizen who goes to Guam or Puerto Rico is an Illegal immigrant. These were US territories and therefore part of the US even though they were not states.

      Immigrants are defined as people who relocate to a different country. Go check Websters or dictionary.com. You will find that your definition is incorrect.

      So no, they were not illegal immigrants because they were not immigrants. Nor was their moving into the territories illegal. What was illegal was their claim to the land. That makes them squatters. Start using language correctly and stop twisting to serve your anti-American agenda.

      If they were immigrants then please tell us what nation they were immigrating to. Yeah, you can’t can you. Stop promoting a lie David, You’re looking foolish and you are promoting an anti-American lie meant to tear down our country and the people in it.

      • Brucehenry

        After the Trail of Tears the entirety of what is now Oklahoma was promised to the various Indian tribes (“nations”) in perpetuity. It is true that the areas of the Land Rush were called “Unassigned,” but that is because the territory was unassigned to any specific tribe. The whole of what is now Oklahoma was supposed to be reserved for Indians.

        The fact that the treaties were amended later to allow white settlement only demonstrates the power of the US Army as compared to the various Indian tribes. The later treaties weren’t so much “negotiated” as they were “imposed.”

        In that sense David is correct to use the term “illegal immigrant.” It’s not even technically wrong.

        EDIT: It’s no more “anti-American” to tell the truth about the Land Rush than it is “anti-English” to tell the truth about King James I’s Plantation of Ireland or “anti-German” to tell the truth about the Sudeten Crisis of 1938.

        • jim_m

          NO. I object to the inaccurate and inappropriate use of charged language to lie about what happened. That’s all. I know that you hate America and see that everything it has ever done as evil.

          Obviously, since there was going to be a land assignment, the treaty was already inoperative and the land was available for settling.

          Also, Indian reservations, while considered sovereign territory for the Indians, are still considered US lands. They are not foreign countries and therefor you cannot immigrate to them.

          If they are foreign countries please explain exactly how the US government has any business with them. Please explain how the Bureau of Indian Affairs is part of the Dept of Interior and not the Dept of State.

          • JWH

            Somebody get Jim_M his smelling salts. He’s got a case of the vapors!!!!

          • jim_m

            OK. You tell me why the BIA is part of the Dept of Interior and not the Dept of State since you seem to agree that Indian lands are foreign countries.

            I’m not claiming that we never dd anything wrong to the Indians. I”m just saying that the use of language here is incorrect and at least in the case of Bruce, dishonest and deliberately so.

          • JWH

            Nah. I’m just gonna get you yer smellin’ salts.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Just out of curiosity, do you think that most liberals are, in fact, “anti-American”?

        • jim_m

          Calling Americans “illegal immigrants” is an attempt to draw a moral equivalency between the westward development of the US and modern illegal immigration. Describing them as such is factually incorrect as the lands were considered US territories and so therefore people could not immigrate to them.

          You and David seek to twist the meaning of immigrant in order to slander the US and create the pretext for an argument that we have no moral justification for refusing to accept illegal immigration today.

          • Brucehenry

            My point is that the territories in question were NOT considered, legally, “US Territories” in the same sense as Guam and Puerto Rico are today. The various “nations” or tribes of Indians were considered “sovereign” at the time of the Trail of Tears’ aftermath, even if their purported sovereignty was a fiction. The BIA was created later after the might of the US government unilaterally made the treaties, to use your euphemism, “inoperative.”

            I’m not making any attempt to twist anything in order to make any larger point. I’m just pointing out that David’s phrase, if arguably technically incorrect (and also arguably correct, too!), is at least apt as an analogy.

          • jim_m

            No it isn’t. It incorrectly describes what they did and misidentifies their transgression. It wasn’t illegal for them to be where they were. It was illegal for them to claim the land when they did.

            I refuse to believe that you are so stupid as to be incapable of understanding the distinction. I put continued argument to stem primarily from dishonesty and a desire to deliberately paint settlers as something they were not.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I go back to my original assertion that David’s phrase can be considered simply a figure of speech, an analogy, and not meant to be an exact comparison.

            So the question becomes whether one is “stupid” for thinking so, or one is “stupid” for NOT thinking so, or whether a disagreement on whether or not a phrase is apt is grounds for such an accusation. I contend it ain’t, and that there’s no reason to get all butthurt about it, and fly off the handle with accusations of “anti-Americanism.” Sheesh.

            Now if we want to argue about whether settlers were this or that we can, but I have made no such argument here. I believe, though, that maybe you should look into the history of Manifest Destiny a little more closely and read a little more widely; perhaps you would hold a less romantic, and less outdated, view.

          • jim_m

            I would accept that but he already doubled down on the argument suggesting that he does not consider it just a figure of speech. He has also made direct and false claims about the definition of the word, been presented with the falsity of his argument and not responded.

            I know what happened. You neglect to consider that maybe I just don’t care.

  • Everyone knows that history did not begin until after Obama was born. Nothing worth remembering anyway!

  • Michael Lang

    Wittle Brucie and his moronic spewings on this thread is a absolute proof that liberalism is a mental diease.

  • magic1114

    Obama prefers the “Land Rush” that’s happening today, only the participants are rushing up from the south,