Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: normanpubbie
Yeppers. Actual origin of the usage aside, I think of your usage when I hear the term.

Wasn't Oklahoma supposed to be Indian territory? I guess it was.... until we wanted it back! ;)

44 posted on 08/26/2009 12:48:33 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream
In the 1830's, the "Five Civilized Tribes" (Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Seminole), were forcibly removed from Alabama and Georgia by the Feds and marched to eastern Oklahoma where each tribe was assigned to a reservation. The area was collectively known as Indian Territory.

In the 1880's, some of this reservation land was again seized by the federal government to create Oklahoma Territory, designated for white settlement. Quarter-sections of land were given to anyone who staked it out, registered it, cleared the land, and grew crops on it for three successive years.

The Indian tribes were paid for their lands but the federal government held on to the money and parceled it out to the tribes at regular intervals. And apparently the Bureau of Indian Affairs cannot account for billions of dollars that are supposed to be in tribal and individual accounts.

I don't have a drop of Indian blood in me, but I know unfairness when I see it.

So, in Oklahoma at least, my definition of "Indian giver" is more accurate than Wikipedia's.
50 posted on 08/26/2009 1:52:41 PM PDT by normanpubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson