
If you don't understand Oklahoma, you can't understand America
But first, it is important to tell you about my first Oklahoma school history lesson – one I learned when I was eight years old, after my parents moved our family cross-country.
Tulsa's reputation as a haven for the devout held deep appeal for my Jamaican parents, whose lives were steeped in Christian faith. The city's predictable rhythms, its flatness, even its so-called boringness – it all offered a reprieve from what they saw as the chaos and moral drift of our old home in New York.
One day, my new school gathered every fourth grader and led us to the backlot. We were lined up across the lawn and equipped with wagons, protractors and dulled stakes to drive into the ground. We waited for a teacher's voice to yell, 'Go!'
We were to take off quickly, racing each other to find a plot we wanted to take for ourselves. We measured, as well as fourth graders could, the land we wanted to be ours. The entire affair was raucous as us newly minted 'pioneers' yelled, laughed and named our plots whatever our imaginations would allow.
We were re-enacting a land run – one of seven held between 1889 and 1895 – that marked the opening of lands once deeded to Indigenous nations, only to be seized again as part of their forced removal across what we now call the American west.
It may be hard to believe, but Oklahoma City's public schools didn't get around to banning the practice from history lessons until 2014. In its place came a sanitized, feelgood version of state history – one that, like many civil war re-enactments, recasts the fight to preserve slavery as a story of bravery and idealism.
During those history lessons, the ugliness was not even hiding in plain sight. The disregard for the lives on which the state was built was – and still is – a point of pride.
Today, the University of Oklahoma – my alma mater and the state's flagship university – leads every game, welcome event and recruiting fair with its famous chant: 'Boomer!' followed by an echoed 'Sooner!' It's a rallying cry repeated across all its athletic programs, which, like many state schools, are funded far more robustly than classrooms.
Boomers were settlers, mostly white, who agitated in the late 1800s to open land in Indian territory (present-day Oklahoma) for white homesteaders. Led by pugnacious figures such as David Lewis Payne (the putative 'Father of Oklahoma'), they staged illegal incursions before the land was officially opened.
The Sooners entered the land before the legal start time of a land run, cheating to claim the best plots. These rule-breakers are now mythologized in Oklahoma culture. The university's mascot is not an animal or a person, but a covered wagon: an emblem of the pioneering spirit that carved a life from theft and violence.
For much of my life, I struggled to feel pride in a place like this – not just because of its history, but because of the lie we told about it. The real story was buried beneath a more palatable narrative, where horrors were treated as little more than pit stops on the way to celebrating homesteaders. Land theft from Native nations, the displacement of Black families, the racial terror that shadowed statehood – these were footnotes, if they were mentioned at all.
But over time, it was precisely those harder truths that gave me something solid to stand on. That reckoning – naming the harm, sitting with its consequences – is not just about the past. It's a tool we need now, in 2025, when the country is suspended between two impulses: nostalgia and denial.
Across the nation, the fight over whose history counts is really a fight over who gets to claim America. The violence that birthed Oklahoma was not incidental, it was foundational. And unless we confront that, there's no building anything real.
Misunderstand Oklahoma, and you misunderstand the country.
Growing up in Tulsa, the north star for me and my friends was college, followed by a job that could take us anywhere but Oklahoma. Dallas and Houston seemed almost idyllic: more affordable than New York or Los Angeles while still offering an upgraded version of a lifestyle we were already familiar with.
Nothing made me want to stay. Downtown Tulsa felt frozen in amber, a relic of its 'oil capital of the world' heyday, long faded. The place felt ghostly. To me, its nightlife, diversity, direct flights and appetite for progress were all but nonexistent. Until recently, Oklahoma had not had a major-league sports team – though the Oklahoma City Thunder recently broke through, winning the 2025 NBA finals. What professional sports teams we had were literally and colloquially minor, baseball teams with stadiums that left much to be desired.
This is a story of haunting familiarity to people whose home towns are seen as flyovers, rarely seen as worth a stop.
And then, everything changed.
In the decade since I left, Oklahoma has been refashioning its cities, courting new talent, and, according to the Kansas City Federal Reserve, beginning to reverse its long-running brain drain. College graduates like me once left in droves. Now, it seems that the tide is shifting.
If you are an artist, Tulsa will subsidize your loft or studio. If Teach for America has whet your appetite, Tulsa will help with your housing costs. If you have a startup that might struggle with raising venture capital on the coasts, you will find that Tulsa will offer it to you.
Even remote workers with no ties to the state can receive $10,000 or help with a down payment, just for showing up and staying for a year. Convenient, when the airport now offers direct flights to places my younger self could only dream about: New York, Miami, Los Angeles.
These are all points of pride for many. But for all the praise, concerns do remain: rising housing costs, shallow community ties, and whether programs such as Tulsa Remote offer lasting benefits to longtime residents, especially since those efforts are not government-led efforts but philanthropic ones, and rely entirely on the continued generosity of a few wealthy individuals.
Reinvention has always been part of Oklahoma's playbook. Again and again, the state has tried to become something new by recruiting outsiders, whether settlers in the land runs or now digital nomads with graduate degrees, while asking far less of itself when it comes to honoring the people and histories already here.
That strategy may bring headlines, but it rarely brings healing.
No matter how overjoyed I was to see my home state in the headlines for the NBA championship – rather than for being ranked 49th in education or 49th in healthcare – my pride doesn't come from Oklahoma's polished reinvention. It lies in the hard work of seeing my state clearly, in all its contradictions: the violence and the love, the buried history and the stubborn hope.
And to do that, we need to go back nearly 140 years.
I have spent the past five years combing through archives and crisscrossing Oklahoma and the Great Plains, chasing the story of Edward McCabe: the visionary who tried to create a Black state within the US, a figure who stood at the centre of some of America's most volatile collisions.
In the 1880s, McCabe, the first Black statewide elected official in the old west, came to the Oklahoma territory with a vision so bold it startled both Black allies and white detractors: a state colonized by Black people, governed by their own hands, and as McCabe promised, 'unmolested by the selfish greed of the white man'.
It was a dream not of mere survival, but of sovereignty – and it's why a reporter traveling from Minnesota dubbed him 'The One Who Would Be Moses'.
That dream, like so many others on that soil, was paved over by the very forces it tried to escape: anti-Black violence, white economic opportunism and settler colonialism's endless appetite.
McCabe did not ask for a utopia without contradiction. His ride to Langston – one of the all-Black towns he helped found – from his post in the territorial capital of Guthrie, where he served as county treasurer during the 1891 land run, was anything but safe.
White cowboys stopped him on the road, ordered him to turn back, to stop where he stood. He refused, more than once. Then they opened fire. He lived to tell the story, but just barely. It was a warning: dreams built on contested ground do not go unchallenged, and Black ambition could be answered with bullets.
His story, in all its promise and peril, was not that of a perfect man with a clean mission. He promoted colonization while ignoring the fact that the land he hoped to reclaim for Black people had already been promised, stolen, and promised again to Indigenous nations. He stood at the nexus of Black aspiration and Native dispossession. And in doing so, he reflected the central American dilemma: that ambition will never be clean because the ground itself is stolen.
McCabe's dream of a Black-governed state was mocked, sabotaged and eventually erased from civic memory. But in the erasures, we find the outlines of what was feared: not just Black people having land, but Black people on their own terms.
That was always the deeper threat. Not a land grab, but a claim to belong. A declaration of autonomy.
That is why I return to him: not because he got it right, but because he tried. His efforts, and those of his peers, can still be seen in the 13 all-Black towns in Oklahoma (down from the 50 that once stood tall). These towns were founded as havens – places where Black Americans could govern themselves, own land and live free from white oversight. Many who built and settled these towns were just one generation removed from slavery, carrying the memory – often their own or that of their parents – of what it meant to be owned, uprooted and denied the right to belong. Their movement westward was not merely an act of escape; it was an act of creation. They were not just fleeing the violence of Reconstruction's collapse; they were imagining something freer, fuller and governed by their own hands.
Today, those towns are no longer exclusively Black, nor are they legally restricted to Black residents. Anyone can move there, marry there, build a life there. But their founding spirit endures.
McCabe spoke in what newspapers would call 'nigger talk' – a term of derision meant to dismiss any Black person who dared to articulate sovereignty, self-governance or the audacious idea of belonging on their own terms. But McCabe wore the insult as armor. He turned the slur into strategy, the scorn into a blueprint. And they tried to kill him for it. But what they didn't realize is that this was not just talk, it was a creed. A blueprint. A framework for building a world not yet born.
That is the lesson Oklahoma teaches.
Oklahoma has always been a place America used to test its next chapter. After Reconstruction failed, and the US government abandoned its promises to Native nations, parts of the territory were branded 'no man's land' – as if no person of value had ever lived there. But it was not empty; it was further removed. Oklahoma could have been a blueprint for belonging, a place carved out for those most marginalized: Black people fleeing racial terror, Native nations pushed from their homelands, immigrants seeking a foothold.
Instead, it became a proving ground for the ugly zero-sum politics that plague America today, pitting groups against each other. Today, Oklahoma remains at the forefront of deciding what counts as American – whether in its classrooms, its public religion or its laws. Just look at how it is redrawing church-state boundaries in public education, and even forcing social studies textbooks to convey 2020 election conspiracy theories as fact.
If we are serious about holding this country together, we have to reckon with the real American inheritance, where ambition and betrayal, dreaming and dispossession, are not opposite. They are co-tenants.
What McCabe knew is that place matters. Not just as geography, but as some kind of theology. It matters that this particular expression of Black belonging emerged not in areas with longstanding, high concentrations of Black people – but in a place where white America was still shaping into its newest frontier. And it was in this place being reinvented that McCabe thought he could be most successful.
My parents left New York searching for moral clarity in the middle of the country, but found none of this history in any brochure. For me, a child of migrants raised on the rules of holiness, I learned the unholy truth in reverse: that even sanctified ground can be built atop stolen land. That even the righteous can inherit the sins of the empire.
Oklahoma is a map of America's legacies. It doesn't pretend to be a blank slate. Instead, its history offers a truer, unvarnished portrait of America, with its ambitions, its erasures, its stubborn beauty and its almost devotional violence.
It's not the place where dreams go to die. It has long been the place where dreams go to collide.
Caleb Gayle is the author of Black Moses, a Saga of Ambition and the Fight for a Black State, out 12 August (Riverhead books)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
MTG hints that she might be finished with the GOP: ‘I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me'
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a well-known far-right Republican and loyal ally to President Donald Trump, has expressed deep frustrations and a growing rift with her political party. Over the last few weeks, Greene has notably broken with her party and the president on several matters she cares deeply about. She condemned Israel's war in Gaza and called it a 'genocide,' opposed Trump's recent artificial intelligence executive order, and advocated for the administration to release the Epstein Files. The pattern, Greene said in an interview with The Daily Mail this week, represents her frustrations with the Republican Party, which she believes is abandoning policies geared toward regular Americans. 'I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to the Republican Party as much anymore,' Greene said. 'I don't know which one it is.' The Georgia congresswoman said she felt as if the party had given up on issues that she resonates with, such as stopping foreign aid, using the Department of Government Efficiency to make cuts across the federal government, and driving down inflation. Greene had long advocated for the U.S. to stop sending military aid to Ukraine amid the Russia–Ukraine conflict – something that has not ceased. She has also criticized the administration for involving itself in the Iran–Israel conflict. Since Elon Musk, the de facto head of DOGE, left the White House, the administration appears to be less focused on using DOGE to make cuts. While DOGE staffers are still present throughout the government, reports indicate they have less authority. 'Like what happened to all those issues? You know that I don't know what the hell happened with the Republican Party. I really don't,' Greene said. 'But I'll tell you one thing, the course that it's on, I don't want to have anything to do with it, and I just don't care anymore,' she added. Greene has said online that she believes Republicans are pushing away younger voters by continuing to push the same unpopular policies. But she told The Daily Mail that the GOP may also be unpopular with conservative women based on how it treats them. 'I think there's other women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women,' Greene said. The Georgia congresswoman specifically referenced Elise Stefanik, the Republican Rep. from New York. Trump initially nominated Stefanik to serve as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., but then reportedly pulled her nomination to maintain a safe majority in the House of Representatives. Instead, he nominated former national security adviser Mike Waltz. Greene said Stefanik got 'screwed' by Speaker Mike Johnson and people in the White House – Greene specifically said she did not blame the president. While Greene expressed frustrations with the current state of the Republican Party she did not say she would definitely rescind her affiliation with it.


Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Democrats turn to ‘hellcats' military veterans to win mid-terms
The Democrats are turning to military veteran candidates to help them win back the House of Representatives next year, including a group that calls themselves the Hellcats Democrats are already running in at least nine swing districts, but party officials are eyeing up more than 30 potential new veteran candidates for the House as part of a new strategy aimed at freshening up their image. 'We can't just have people who seem like tired old Democrats,' Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and former Marine, told the New York Times. 'It's a cycle when people are very frustrated with the Democratic Party – including Democrats.' Democrats are trying to rebuild in the wake of Mr Trump's sweeping election victory, in which Republicans won both the House and the Senate. The tactic to run military veterans reprises a strategy that helped deliver the House in 2018 and could be especially effective for making inroads into rural, Republican-leaning districts, according to Democratic political strategists. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who is assisting with candidate recruitment for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said that veterans made effective candidates because they didn't come across as part of a ruling elite. 'What Americans are really thirsty for right now are leaders, not just politicians,' he told The New York Times. Among the military veteran candidates running for the Democrats are four women who have a group chat called the 'Hellcats' – named after the first female Marines who served in World War One. JoAnna Mendoza, 48, a single mother who said she joined the Marines because there were 'no job opportunities' in her rural community, is challenging for a Republican seat in southeastern Arizona. 'The system isn't designed for people like me,' she said. During Mr Trump's first term, the Democrats won the House in 2018 off the back of a slate of veteran and female candidates who had worked in national security, including Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Elissa Slotkin, who is now a Michigan senator. The focus on ex-servicemen and women forms part of the Democrats' push to reclaim the mantle of being the party of patriotism – a message trumpeted by Ms Slotkin, who has emerged as a leading voice in the party since Mr Trump's return to office. 'We need to take the flag back from the people who are spitting on our democracy,' she said in a recent post on X. It comes as Democrat lawmakers have turned on each other over the party's failure to stand up to the president's assault on US institutions from government departments, to universities and law firms. Cory Booker, the New Jersey Senator, warned that history would remember members of his party's 'complicity in 'bending the knee' to Mr Trump. 'What I want to see more people doing is not doing what some law firms have done, bend the knee to Donald Trump…That to me is outrageous,' Mr Booker told CNN. The Senator this week launched a fiery tirade against his colleagues on the House floor, bellowing that 'the Democratic Party needs a wake up call'. In an effort to destabilise Mr Trump's agenda, Senate Democrats blocked more than 50 of the president's nominees from being confirmed on Saturday, prompting a furious backlash from Mr Trump. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, refused to vote to confirm the low-level appointments unless federal funds were released and Mr Trump agreed not to push more cuts to federal funding, sources told CNN. As a result, just seven of the nominees were confirmed, while the remainder will not be voted on until lawmakers return from their summer recess in September. The president responded by telling Mr Schumer to 'go to hell'. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' he wrote on Truth Social. 'Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS.'

The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared
Donald Trump's vow to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) access to millions of Americans is on hold, with White House officials backing away from plans to require Obamacare health plans to include the service as an essential health benefit, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The Post reported that White House officials have privately moved away from the prospect of pushing for legislation to address the issue despite it being one of Trump's signature campaign promises, citing two persons with knowledge of internal discussions in Trumpworld. A senior administration official also acknowledged to the newspaper that changing Obamacare to force insurers to cover new services would require congressional action, not an executive order. The president has governed largely by executive fiat in his second term as he grapples with a closely-divded Congress and an unruly GOP majority in the House of Representatives. He's used those executive orders to dismantle whole parts of the federal government, including USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The president even tried to take an axe to the Department of Education, though that battle is still being waged in the courts. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to cut roughly a quarter of the agency's staff. But many of Trump's campaign promises lie outside of his ability to influence via the hiring or firing of people and redirection of agency resources or agendas. In 2024, he laid out no direct path for his goal to expand IVF access, only telling voters that insurance companies would be forced to cover it. Still, he proclaimed himself the 'father of IVF' at at Fox News town hall, and promised during an NBC News interview: 'We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.' At the time, there was little to no acknowledgment of the fact that many if not most conservatives still oppose the Affordable Care Act and the same healthcare exchanges which Trump was now promising to utilize as he sought to use the power of the federal government to expand healthcare coverage. Now, with the passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' without any provisions expanding IVF access, and with the prospect of further policy gains before the midterms growing dimmer, it's unclear when the White House would have another chance to press the issue in Congress. In February, the president signed an executive order directing his advisers to 'submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' It's been crickets on the issue since then. In 2024, many of Trump's critics and the media pointed out that the policy would essentially amount to a reversal or at the very least coming in sharp contrast to the first Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which ended in failure, and a contradiction of the conservative view that government should not exercise that level of control over Americans' health care decisions. The president's promise thrilled his party's natalists, embodied by Vice President JD Vance and an army of right-wing immigration hawks who fear the changing American demographics brought on as a result of falling birth rates and high levels of migration. It also wowed some of his Democratic and left-leaning critics, who see the policy as a means of furthering their goal of expanding access to healthcare for poorer Americans. For Vance, the issue of declining U.S. birth rates predates his MAGA heel-turn. In 2019, he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington: 'Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.' 'We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,' the future vice president added at the time. Two years later, he'd tell a right-leaning podcast: 'I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.' During the 2024 campaign, those views emerged again as Vance attacked Democrats as 'childless cat ladies' and leaned heavily into attacking the left for supposedly being anti-family. Progressives fought back, pointing to efforts to expand the child tax credit and other benefits that aid young families under Joe Biden and other Democratic administrations, including the passage of Barack Obama's signature law: the Affordable Care Act.