rwpag71 said:

---

Some commission set up by the State was able to confirm a relatively low number of dead (40 or so?), but estimated between 75-300. Every time I hear it mentioned on media the number is 300. Apparently you are not allowed to question that number.

---

Here we go. This may interest. An account from the better more sober pre Y2K period, and also shows how was not concealed or anything, just obscure. A typical blurb of last century, showing it was mentioned. Chronicle of the Year book published in 1987 says about "85 people killed" and hundreds injured. The post by AggiePetro07 corresponds -- a large number of armed blacks gathered to prevent a rumored feared lynching of a negro said to have attacked a white woman in an elevator. The police tried to surround it and keep away a white mob also gathering. That's when the shooting breaks out. Afterward, surprisingly, it is mentioned that the whites started breaking "into every hardware and sporting good store" to obtain weapons. It is that mob that then invades the black neighborhoods commuting arson and mayhem. Oklahoma state guard ends up intervening. Hundreds injured and thousands left homeless.

Its just a short blurb, but you have to suspect the "rumored" lynching was going to take place. The gathering had to have a catalyst. "Both sides showed their ass" sums it up by all sound of it.

What is striking is how much nortex97's point of the resemblance to Seattle and Portland happens here. (Minus the state guard ever doing anything about it.)

TLDR: So in 1987 one general running number quote in the air was 85-ish killed total on both sides. Fwiw.

Thanks to all for the responses.

keyboard screwed. Liquid spilled.Hubs in trouble. /when i can be back.

Smithsonian Channel has one hour program, Tulsa 1921 -- tonight, 9.

I'm 47, and have ardently read and watched the news since I was 8 or so, and I have never heard of this event. As terrible as it was, how did I manage to graduate from university, and never hear of this event?

When I say as terrible as it was, it was a pathetic, ignorant and unnecessary act.

Buford T. Justice said:

---

I'm 47, and have ardently read and watched the news since I was 8 or so, and I have never heard of this event. As terrible as it was, how did I manage to graduate from university, and never hear of this event?

When I say as terrible as it was, it was a pathetic, ignorant and unnecessary act.

---

With respect, not much is learned by TV/cable as compared to reading. That's a big part of why. If you look at movies and what people think history is, you can easily tell what periods of time, entire empires even, and events, never had a movie or TV show.

Another factor is you are about a decade behind me. "News" was nose-diving in quality and becoming excessively partisan by the 90's. Perhaps not coincidentally in the wake of 24/hour news. Print news tended to mirror it. An exception for a long time was major magazines.

This is just another instance of the powers that be twisting the truth beyond recognition to fit their narrative.

I don't know enough about the event in terms of deaths, etc but it was a horrible event in Oklahoma's history for sure.

Know nothing but just guess some Democrats killed blacks is the typical historical narrative.

I just posted on another thread

Quote:

---

anyone that cares. 1776 Unites has curriculum you can download that covers major AA figures and events in American history.

They have a curriculum pack that covers the 1921 Tulsa race war. They don't pull any punches on the tragedy of the event and the racism that existed at the time in Tulsa. But there is also alot of information about the event and the aftermath that tells the REST OF THE STORY.

Parts of that story include things like the first 12 people dead were 10 whites and 2 blacks. These numbers led to things escalating very quickly among the white community. That's no excuse for their lawlessness, but very few media accounts include the fact that the jailhouse deaths were mostly white people.

Another piece of the history is that the Tulsa AA community rebuilt and actually brought Greenwood back stronger economically than it was in 1921. They did this without much help.

What ended up destroying Greenwood decades later was the federal Urban renewal programs implemented in the 60s and 70s. Urban planning programs, including major federal funding for major highway infrastructure and public housing would end up wiping out historic Greenwood which had been thriving again since the 1930s.

1776 Unites is a group of AA scholars that have banded together to tell the stories of success and triumph within the AA community throughout American history. Their curriculum is what should be tought in our schools.

---

https://1776unites.com/our-work/curriculum/download/

Btw- The 300 number is actually based on the reports from the woman that headed up the Red Cross effort in Greenwood in 1921. It is not just a number created by activists 100 years later. But the researchers have yet to be able to corroborate her own numbers based on her interviews and on the ground relief work at the time. The theory being that the Tulsa powers that be would not file reports that would confirm the numbers.

Well if 85 overall was a recognized idea in 1987, and you have someone with the Red Cross saying 300 in 1921, that's not that far a gap given the chaos of neighborhoods being burned and the record keeping of those times. There is nothing special about 300 that makes it out of the question if there are real-time primary sources rather than 21st C activism stating it. It is starting to sound like initial good faith disagreement on what can be demonstrated by research, but of course this century is being misused.

I wouldn't say combat casualties, no matter the figure or horrific nature, is a massacre, this was not a massacre, neither was Pickett's charge at G'Burg. Anyway....

Quote:

---

.... a different type massacre happed at Cold Harbor that killed or wounded 12,000 soldiers of the Army of the Potomac many of whom where at least in part fighting to end slavery.....

---

Pure fiction. Of those 12K, very few, as in not even a statistical 1%, probably not even .1%, would have given a damn about slavery and certainly would not have fought to end slavery, not even a little bit/part.

Where does this fiction come from and how and why is it being taught in our schools and how do people believe it? 99.999999999999999999999999% of Union soldiers didn't care at all about slavery and were fighting only and solely to keep the country together and bring the CSA states back into the fold. If it was a stated goal of the Union Army that they were going to war to end slavery in the south, they would not have even been able to field an army as nobody would have signed up for that and there would have been mass civil unrest in the Union states if they tried to implement a draft to go to war over slavery.....

Quote:

---

Tulsa in the 1920s was badass.

---

That sounds similar to "Waco was badass".

Quote:

---

Waite Phillips headquartered Phillips Petroleum there prior to the massacre.

---

Grandfather to Bum Phillips?

Quote:

---

The oil reserves there caused a rush around the start of the last century and there were over 120,000 people living there. So, maybe not huge if you look around today, but for a brand new state (1907), pretty good sized. and compared similar to Houston in population during that time period. It had everything: music, art and architecture, oil money, and was thriving.

---

Ok, sounds really like a boom town for that area then. Thanks for the info.

Excellent post!

Biden using an event that happened 100 years ago to highlight systemic racism today.

"...dredge up the past..."

Not denying the event happened ( I first heard about it back in the 80's), but now that the ruling Democratic Party is on a kick to "... right the errors of our ways..." the event has gained a new life and is being blasted everywhere. Joey B's talk last night was despicable: why blame the people of today for what happened 100+ years ago? Most of us weren't around and our parents weren't either. I'd like to think that the US has progressed to the better since then (interracial marriage, black people assimilating more and more into society in spite of Democratic Party policies, etc). What happened then was despicable and wouldn't happen now, but this event on the level of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or 9-11? No. Thanks For opening old wounds and creating more tension, those of you that want to do that.

There's also the Wilmington incident of 1898, the only coup d'etat to ever occur on US soil. I guess at least until last Jan. 6th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898

Never heard of that. I am going to read up on that one. Thanks for posting.

I will match you


and raise 2 of 5 Fenian raids.

TxTarpon said:

---

Quote:

---

Tulsa in the 1920s was badass.

---

That sounds similar to "Waco was badass".

Quote:

---

Waite Phillips headquartered Phillips Petroleum there prior to the massacre.

---

Grandfather to Bum Phillips?

Quote:

---

The oil reserves there caused a rush around the start of the last century and there were over 120,000 people living there. So, maybe not huge if you look around today, but for a brand new state (1907), pretty good sized. and compared similar to Houston in population during that time period. It had everything: music, art and architecture, oil money, and was thriving.

---

Ok, sounds really like a boom town for that area then. Thanks for the info.

Excellent post!

---

I didn't think about the *coach, but the Phillips family were generous benefactors during their lives and Philmont Scout Ranch was due to Waite's land donation.

Multiple oil companies were formed and headquartered in the city during the 20's. Warren Petroleum was another (WKW founded it in Delaware but HQ was in Tulsa). George Getty was another.

Lot of interesting history in America. Wasn't my background in school, but it's something I like to read. Some real entrepreneurs in the oil bidness and some characters and criminals too.

Not directly related though I don't believe.

Are you being a little satirical, as suspect? Always a little hard to tell. Because those kind of riots did happen. But what is more, is after mid 1863 when the impression slavery was part of was more reinforced, there was more of just what you describe. In various primary accounts, its surprising how many still did not rule out the war being brought to an end short of a Sherman style victory till late 1864. The weariness in the North was great.

torrid said:

---

There's also the Wilmington incident of 1898, the only coup d'etat to ever occur on US soil. I guess at least until last Jan. 6th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898

---

2021 is also the 100 year anniversary of the Battle of Blair Mountain. Which I believe is considered the largest armed conflict on American soil since the Civil War.

I believe of 100 people were killed. It was a Coal Miners vs. Coal Mine Owners conflict rising out of Union organizing. Involved over 13,000 armed men.

The anniversary is coming up in August. It involved virtually all white people. So I doubt we hear a peep about it. But in terms of interesting historical events we don't get taught, this was a far bigger armed conflict than Tulsa that resulted in more confirmed deaths.

A playwright here in Texas actually wrote a play about the event. It was performed probably 4-5 years ago and I was blown away, I had never heard of this conflict. I had studied the Tulsa event back in the mid-90s. So I've known of that event for 25 years.

There are some wild details surrounding the event. I highly recommend reading up on it. If the play is ever performed again I will post information about it on here for anyone interested.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Imho, Blair Mountain is an important event to contrast with Tulsa. An important reminder, that as tragic and senseless as Tulsa was 100 years ago, that very same year in the same country, an event involved even more armed people killing each other or trying to kill each other and it was not because anyone was black.

I only know about the Ludlow Massacre of 1914 because I've driven by the site on I-25 and wondered what it was about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

That is interesting. It's not useful to the racial division/race card game the Dem-CCP types want to play though, so no one will talk about it.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

I wouldn't say combat casualties, no matter the figure or horrific nature, is a massacre, this was not a massacre, neither was Pickett's charge at G'Burg. Anyway....

Quote:

---

.... a different type massacre happed at Cold Harbor that killed or wounded 12,000 soldiers of the Army of the Potomac many of whom where at least in part fighting to end slavery.....

---

Pure fiction. Of those 12K, very few, as in not even a statistical 1%, probably not even .1%, would have given a damn about slavery and certainly would not have fought to end slavery, not even a little bit/part.

Where does this fiction come from and how and why is it being taught in our schools and how do people believe it? 99.999999999999999999999999% of Union soldiers didn't care at all about slavery and were fighting only and solely to keep the country together and bring the CSA states back into the fold. If it was a stated goal of the Union Army that they were going to war to end slavery in the south, they would not have even been able to field an army as nobody would have signed up for that and there would have been mass civil unrest in the Union states if they tried to implement a draft to go to war over slavery.....

---

Ok then call it a slaughter if you want. When you have a charge like what happened at Cold Harbor (worse that Picket's 7K killed or wounded in ~10 minutes) it's definitely worth understanding what motivated the troops involved.

Your stats grossly misrepresent the motivations of the soldiers fighting on the union side. If you really want to understand how the soldiers doing the fighting felt you should read "For Cause and Comrade" by James McPherson. He attempts to give a representative sample of the letters/diaries written by the people actually doing the fighting. Particularly by 1964 a significant number of union solders supported abolition and agreed with it being a part of the goal of the war. The ignorance associated with your 99.99% number is really why we need balance in how history is taught. We want things to fall into clear cut categories but they don't.

My intention wasn't to turn this into a Civil War discussion only to point out that there are other significant events in our history that the average person doesn't know that should also be taught to fill out and give a broader perspective of our history.

This was a massacre that most people have never heard of. There's a lot of violent history in our past that most Americans have never heard about, which is unfortunate. I had a friend whose husband was a child at the time and survived this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

Gap said:

---

Give credit to the HBO series Watchmen for bringing attention to this when it aired in October 2019.

---

this. That series wasn't totally bad but the premise that HBO went with was eye-rolling. The only reason I got through it is because I have been a Watchmen fan for a very long time. Happy to see the original comic book ending was pivotal to the HBO series.

OK then, we'll agree to disagree. Accepting a goal of the war introduced mid-stream after you are already committed and fighting does not mean support in my book. And yes my 99.99% is used to exaggeration. Are we to believe soldiers from states with black codes decades before Jim Crow actually cared about slavery, that doesn't make sense.

Without putting a % or # to it, an extreme minority of Union soldiers would have ever fought to end slavery, and an equal % or # of CSA soldiers fought to support and retain slavery.

As for Tulsa, terrible incident. As for Biden, only an idiot would try to talk about something from 100 years ago and say white supremacy is the biggest threat to the country in 2021, greater than ISIS, blah, blah, blah.

Muy said:

---

Biden using an event that happened 100 years ago to highlight systemic racism today.

---

Especially ironic since President Biden has shown on numerous occasions he is still a racist.

It just another diversion imo. Press has been provided marching orders to use the 100 yr anniversary as an excuse to be able to stir things up and divert attention from results of failed administration policies. I feel like it's
Not really working.

Will be largely forgotten about soon and then it'll be on to the next diversion.

It is to be noted that 1921 was well before WW2 and the general reaction against racism and National Socialism that was caused by the racist excess the NAZI leadership committed in Germany (plus mass killings by Stalin and Mao).
In 1921 it was still possible that American Democrats could have turned into National Socialists.
If the Dems take over now as the one ruling party, I wonder if they will change the Party name?

TXAG 05 said:

---

I'm interested too. I have a feeling it wasn't near as bad as the media makes it out to be.

---

I don't know man. From the photographs I've seen and eyewitness accounts I've heard, it seems pretty bad.