Chang, David A. The Color of the Land: Race, Nation, and the Politics of Landownership in Oklahoma, 1832-1929. The Color of the Land. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014.

Submitted for coursework, June, 2019. Lightly redacted.

David Chang argues that we should consider land itself as key in determining the ways both the U.S. and the Creek Nation “have defined their races, nations, and classes” focusing on the allotment process as a key way in which change was negotiated (6). He complements an array of typical government documents and treaties with oral histories to prove his thesis, which is largely successful. The book is divided into three parts, with pre-and post-allotment periods sandwiching a long chapter on how Creeks and non-Creek Blacks dealt with how to best negotiate allotment. As “freedmen” came to signify a one-drop rule and the possibility of accepting only “full-blooded” Creeks into the nation, Blacks had to decide whether allotment would provide economic security or whether they would support an anti-allotment policy. As allotment policy was designed somewhat transparently as a policy of racial division and usurpation, these divisions became paramount. While the Dawes Act of 1887 brought allotment into political discourse, the Curtis Act of 1898 threatened to amend the 1887 Act, forcing the Creek nation to negotiate as best terms they could, which meant problems for African-descended Creeks. These acts were predicated on liberal concepts of freedom and equality, using the excuse of breaking up large Creek landholders. Chapter five develops some of the interesting arguments that ensued, with some Creeks exploiting the language of racial inferiority to describe themselves (and often Black Creeks) as biologically backward, the idea being to establish property protections to buffer them from the exploitation of predatory land speculators. On the other hand, whites tended to argue for Creeks to have full autonomy over their allotments. The compromise allowed for Creeks to have a portion of their land set aside as “homestead” and the other as “surplus). Yet, the racialized way restrictions were put into place handicapped Black Creeks as protections for “full-blood” Creeks were much more robust. These restrictions led to tenancy, not ownership by whites, which encouraged whites to look for ways to adjust policy in favor of removing lands; taxes were one way to do this, where smaller landowners unable to pay their debts quickly succumbed to debt. Regardless, Chang argues that “the way [Creeks] chose allotments and the ways they used them demonstrate that Creeks were determined to try and use the new land system to sustain kinship and community ties rather than to embrace the economic individualism that allotment was meant to accomplish” (144).

One of the remarkable qualities about Chang’s writing is his willingness to define terms succinctly and informatively. His erudite and readable analysis offers a critical look at how race, land, nation, and politics intersect in one of the areas where heterogenous groups formed and capitalist exploitation abounded.