Demonstrators at Norman's 89er Parade last Saturday. Photo by Kathryn Hatcher. (Click for larger.)

by Casey Holcomb

Last weekend Oklahoma celebrated 89er Day with parades, cook-outs, and festivals held all over the state. But for some Oklahomans, the Land Runs these festivals commemorate are not cause for celebration.

The Land Run of 1889 brought an early population and economic base that would put Oklahoma Territory on the path to statehood. However, it also continued a long history of human rights abuses against indigenous peoples that has led to the extinction or near extinction of many once vibrant Native peoples, cultures, and languages.

Existing alongside the popular history of the Oklahoma Land Runs is a story of painful relocations, extermination, and loss.

Counter-celebrations and museum exhibits

In Norman, the accuracy of historical narratives woven by 89er Day festivities is not going unchallenged.

The Jacobson House Native Art Center and Moore-Lindsay Historical Home cosponsored the “180-4-89er Day Perspective.” The exhibits showcased historical documents and artwork about the allotment policies, court cases, and legislation leading up to the Land Runs.

Contemporary photographs, music, books, and traditional clothing were also on display in an effort to bring a more balanced perspective to our history.

Exhibits depicted the consequences of allotment policies and treaty disputes such as the Supreme Court case, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, which granted the U.S. Congress absolute power over all treaties, including those made with the tribes.

Jacobson House Director Kricket Rhoads-Connywerdy spoke at length about the long history of treaty disputes, court cases, and legislative acts aimed at undermining tribal authority and hindering the sovereignty of tribal governments. She made note of various polices designed to compel the assimilation of Indians into North American society and culture.

“What the Curtis Act did was make our communal lands, or ‘reservations’, into individual allotments which could eventually be sold by individuals instead of having a common land base for the tribal governments and communities to function,” she said. “This act paved the way for the Land Runs and the checkerboard tracts of allotments that make it in the very least difficult or almost impossible to continue communal living for tribal governments and their peoples.”

Rhoads-Connywerdy said there is a consensus among native communities that the Oklahoma Land Runs were a legal means for permitting the theft of properties held in common by tribes.  She said it is important to see the different perspectives of Oklahoma history side-by-side.

“You can’t have one story without the other,” she said. “Even within my own family I have one grandmother who is one generation from a homestead and one grandmother who is one generation from allotment. Both came from hard-working families. Probably many people who come to view the exhibit are like me and would appreciate viewing both perspectives: Land Loss – Land Gain.”

She also made it clear that she did not believe it was necessarily the people responsible for the theft of Indigenous lands, but the government policies that mandated westward expansion and the enactment of legislation that permitted land runs.

“There should be discussion and dialogue taking place about Oklahoma history and about what events should and should not be celebrated,” Rhoads-Connywerdy said. “But Land Runs should not be a celebratory event, and people should question what is being celebrated.”

Rhoads-Connywerdy said she was impressed with the interest generated by the 180-4-89er Day Perspective and pleased with how many people visited the exhibits at both the Moore-Lindsay museum and the Jacobson House.

“I hope that we all can learn our history and join together as Oklahomans,” she said. “It really does help the psychological well-being of a people to know that their history is not being swept under the rug but acknowledged alongside the other stories we heard in school.”

Saturday’s parade met with protest

Demonstrators at Norman's 89er Day Parade. Photo by Kathryn Hatcher. (Click for larger.)

A group of demonstrators assembled to protest the 89er Day Parade on Main Street Saturday morning. Demonstrators said they had tried to enter an official float in the parade but were denied. They voiced objection to the overall omission of Native Americans from the historical narrative of 89er Day.

“The Land Run Re-enactments and 89er Day celebrations pull together Oklahoma Indians young and old in disgust,” said organizer Brenda Golden, a member of the Society to Preserve Indigenous Rights & Indigenous Traditions (SPIRIT). “Although there was only a handful of us protesting the Norman 89er day parade, we have received quite a bit of support in this area and from other Oklahoma Indians across the state.”

During the 2007 Oklahoma Centennial celebrations in downtown Oklahoma City, SPIRIT organized a large inter-tribal counter-celebration with a parade through Bricktown and a march on the State Capitol.

Many found the theme of this year’s Norman parade, “The Cowboy Way…Gonna Treat You Great!”, difficult to reconcile with the long history of broken treaty agreements, violent relocation campaigns, and policies forbidding cultural expression and traditional living arrangements.

One sign posed the question, “Is Theft the Cowboy Way?”  Others read, “Educate, Don’t Celebrate” and “Why Celebrate 119 years of Broken Treaties and Land Theft?”

Demonstrators expressed concern about the tradition in public schools of staging children’s re-enactments of the Land Runs. They said these re-enactments perpetuate institutionalized racism and prejudice against Indigenous peoples.

“SPIRIT approached Governor Henry, State Superintendent Sandy Garrett, and state legislators with a petition to end the Land Run Re-enactments in public schools,” Golden said. “They held two lobby days in 2008 for this purpose, but so far no significant changes have occurred.”

Overall, the mood of the demonstrators seemed to be that of a cheerful counter-celebration. When one parade participant riding in a float shouted out, “Why are you protesting?” one of the demonstrators responded, “Well, you don’t celebrate slavery or the Holocaust, do you?”

Another parade participant in one of the covered wagons that closed the parade could be heard shouting “white power.”

Despite some instances of heckling, there were many instances of positive feedback. A number of entrants in the parade gave protesters the thumbs up sign.

One woman, who expressed curiosity about the cause, walked over to meet some of the protesters.  After having reflected on the signs and her conversation with the demonstrators, she said, “I guess I hadn’t thought about it like that before.”  She voiced her support for the action and rejoined the parade with an apparently changed perspective.

A parade participant gives a thumbs up to the protestors. Photo by Kathryn Hatcher. (Click for larger.)

Another parade participant on horseback, identifying himself as a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, rode over to meet the demonstrators. He thanked them for their presence at the parade, which he said was needed.

Some organizers said they would consider making an official entry in the parade next year, although others supported the idea of a separate, inter-tribal parade that would include activities focused on education and dialogue about different conceptions of history.

Organizer Kathryn Hatcher, a business owner and photographer who has lived on reservations in the past, spoke of a need for “opening up the conversation and getting all sides involved.” She noted that many housing facilities on reservations lack basic accommodations such as running water. Hatcher provided the photographs accompanying this article.

Brief legal background on U.S. policies toward Indigenous peoples

Though not an exhaustive list, here are several important pieces of federal legislation that allowed for the dismantling of tribal property and institutions:

1)      The Indian Removal Act of 1830 which set a legal precedent for the forced relocation of tribes to western territories not yet incorporated.

2)      The Homestead Act of 1862, part of a government campaign for westward expansion, that urged newly immigrated European settlers to claim public land and “improve” it over a five-year period in exchange for title.

3)      The Dawes Act of 1887, which allowed the U.S. government to break up lands communally held by tribes into individually owned lots. These lots were subsequently re-appropriated at below market value. The Dawes Act is often viewed as a measure that legalized the theft of communally held tribal lands and prohibited the expression of Native traditions regarding the concept of property. By some estimates, Native Americans lost more than 150 million acres of territory.

4)      The Indian Appropriations Bill of 1889 which opened up two million acres (in what is now central Oklahoma) of the Unassigned Lands that had previously been allotted to Indian tribes to non-Indian settlement.

5)      The Curtis Act of 1898 was an amendment to the Dawes Act that forced all Oklahoma tribes under the provisions of the Dawes Act and severely limited the sovereign authority of tribal courts and governments in Oklahoma Territory. Oklahoma tribes had previously been exempt from the Dawes Act.