Rongagin71 said:

---

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?

---

In many ways the 1920s were quite abnormal end of WWI stock market was insane and Reconstruction was over. People were no longer in subsidence mode.

Throw in the typical lawlessness of an oil boom town, and things easily get out of control.

Not an excuse and that one was worse than others, but not unheard of given the time frame.

My Mom always said the only difference she saw during the Great Depression was that other people were as poor as they were. Priorities changed.

Was talking to my son about this and he said that a History Channel show recently claimed that a mass grave with over a hundred bodies had been found. Supposedly the $30million will be divided up among the actual business owner descendants once they are genetically identified...but after the battle many disappeared into Indian areas of Oklahoma so not sure if that is even possible.
Can you imagine the uproar if descendants of the whites that were killed filed suit for damages?

Rongagin71 said:

---

Was talking to my son about this and he said that a History Channel show recently claimed that a mass grave with over a hundred bodies had been found. Supposedly the $30million will be divided up among the actual business owner descendants once they are genetically identified...but after the battle many disappeared into Indian areas of Oklahoma so not sure if that is even possible.
Can you imagine the uproar if descendants of the whites that were killed filed suit for damages?

---

There have been rumors of a mass grave for years but has that been documented? If so, I have not seen it.

Haven't seen the History Channel episode but if they are using mass grave they are playing the same word games as the media in general.

So far no mass graves have been found that I know of. Media is using "mass grave" to characterize groupings of unmarked coffins, most of which where known to exist but until now money had not been expended to exum the bodies and identify remains. The groupings of coffins so far have numbered about 10 or so.

That I know of, they have found no mass grave with 100 bodies. Although they have been looking for years.

But I would not characterize 8-12 unmarked coffins already known to have existed as mass graves.

The problem was that the M.O. of the criminal justice system back then was to just assume that any black was guilty and railroad them even if evidence didn't exist to support that verdict. That is IF a lynching didn't occur before the trial. Black citizens pushed back because of an absence of justice and representation within the justice system. I wouldn't call that "showing their ass". Showing their ass would have been sitting by in silence while the guy was lynched or imprisoned for nothing.

There are innumerable instances of Emmit Till type events happening back then. Black folks had no voice and could be killed or jailed based on nothing more than conjecture, suspicion, hearsay, lies, etc. I hold tremendous respect for the citizens that stood up against tyranny and evil. I'll go as far as to say that anyone who planned to participate in a lynching deserved a bullet. Unfortunate that it came to that and even worse that whites and Tulsa law enforcement saw fit to raze the black community in order to "remind them of their place". How many of the dozens of armed rioters from the white side of town were arrested?

It's certainly not being made to be a bigger deal than it is but anyone profiting off of the death and misery of the victims they have no connection to is filth that deserves to be They deserve bad things. Very bad things.

policywonk98 said:

---

Haven't seen the History Channel episode but if they are using mass grave they are playing the same word games as the media in general.

So far no mass graves have been found that I know of. Media is using "mass grave" to characterize groupings of unmarked coffins, most of which where known to exist but until now money had not been expended to exum the bodies and identify remains. The groupings of coffins so far have numbered about 10 or so.

That I know of, they have found no mass grave with 100 bodies. Although they have been looking for years.

But I would not characterize 8-12 unmarked coffins already known to have existed as mass graves.

---

Well what have to look at is apparently a contemporary primary source gave a figure of about 300. Now the question is, what circumstances were there that would require some mass grave rather than individual burials? Mass graves happen more like hurricanes, eruptions, war -- where the number killed are so fast and so random that there is not alot of easy identification and the desire to bury quick to prevent pestilence is paramount.

Reports speak of about 6,000 detained for a few days in a baseball park. The conditions sound orderly enough where mass anonymous burials would not be needed.

TLDR: You could have 300 dead, but to then say tossed into mass graves doesn't follow at all. Especially for a sufficiently orderly place. I wonder where the mass grave angle is coming from?

titan said:

---

policywonk98 said:

---

Haven't seen the History Channel episode but if they are using mass grave they are playing the same word games as the media in general.

So far no mass graves have been found that I know of. Media is using "mass grave" to characterize groupings of unmarked coffins, most of which where known to exist but until now money had not been expended to exum the bodies and identify remains. The groupings of coffins so far have numbered about 10 or so.

That I know of, they have found no mass grave with 100 bodies. Although they have been looking for years.

But I would not characterize 8-12 unmarked coffins already known to have existed as mass graves.

---

Well what have to look at is apparently a contemporary primary source gave a figure of about 300. Now the question is, what circumstances were there that would require some mass grave rather than individual burials? Mass graves happen more like hurricanes, eruptions, war -- where the number killed are so fast and so random that there is not alot of easy identification and the desire to bury quick to prevent pestilence is paramount.

Reports speak of about 6,000 detained for a few days in a baseball park. The conditions sound orderly enough where mass anonymous burials would not be needed.

TLDR: You could have 300 dead, but to then say tossed into mass graves doesn't follow at all. Especially for a sufficiently orderly place. I wonder where the mass grave angle is coming from?

---

According to the History Channel program, the surviving blacks were rounded up and detained, while the whites buried the dead. The whites didn't know the names of the dead blacks, so they couldn't put a name on the burial site. So, they weren't a mass grave in that each one was buried and marked individually. But the problem is, once the surviving blacks were released, they didn't know which grave was their relative. And they still don't know.

Win At Life said:

---

titan said:

---

policywonk98 said:

---

Haven't seen the History Channel episode but if they are using mass grave they are playing the same word games as the media in general.

So far no mass graves have been found that I know of. Media is using "mass grave" to characterize groupings of unmarked coffins, most of which where known to exist but until now money had not been expended to exum the bodies and identify remains. The groupings of coffins so far have numbered about 10 or so.

That I know of, they have found no mass grave with 100 bodies. Although they have been looking for years.

But I would not characterize 8-12 unmarked coffins already known to have existed as mass graves.

---

Well what have to look at is apparently a contemporary primary source gave a figure of about 300. Now the question is, what circumstances were there that would require some mass grave rather than individual burials? Mass graves happen more like hurricanes, eruptions, war -- where the number killed are so fast and so random that there is not alot of easy identification and the desire to bury quick to prevent pestilence is paramount.

Reports speak of about 6,000 detained for a few days in a baseball park. The conditions sound orderly enough where mass anonymous burials would not be needed.

TLDR: You could have 300 dead, but to then say tossed into mass graves doesn't follow at all. Especially for a sufficiently orderly place. I wonder where the mass grave angle is coming from?

---

According to the History Channel program, the surviving blacks were rounded up and detained, while the whites buried the dead. The whites didn't know the names of the dead blacks, so they couldn't put a name on the burial site. So, they weren't a mass grave in that each one was buried and marked individually. But the problem is, once the surviving blacks were released, they didn't know which grave was their relative. And they still don't know.

---

Ah, so if true, and History Channel can be uneven, its not "mass grave" in the usual sense. Instead a tragic problem like when the markers are removed by some mishap or other reason took place here from the get-go, from the start. Not so much some unknown large number pile -- but scores and scores of plots separated from their lineage identity.

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.

---

Because at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter much in the grand sweep of history. If something like this doesn't start a movement, or spark national outrage that causes other states or congress to act in some way that leaves a mark on history, it's just a very crappy thing that happened for even worse reasons a long time ago.

Lots of terrible, horrific things happened throughout history. There is simply no way to cover every one of these events in your average US History class. MAYBE in an Oklahoma history class, but if you did not grow up there, you probably aren't going to have the opportunity to take such a class.

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

Because at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter much in the grand sweep of history. If something like this doesn't start a movement, or spark national outrage that causes other states or congress to act in some way that leaves a mark on history, it's just a very crappy thing that happened for even worse reasons a long time ago.

Lots of terrible, horrific things happened throughout history. There is simply no way to cover every one of these events in your average US History class. MAYBE in an Oklahoma history class, but if you did not grow up there, you probably aren't going to have the opportunity to take such a class.

---

There was no national outrage, congressional action, movement, etc because

1) "It was a bunch of uppity black folks that got out of line, forgot their place, and were disrespectful to whites." "It was their fault".

2) The stark reality if Jim Crow USA has never really been taught in history classes. It's glossed over pretty well. There's a difference between not covering all the events and not discussing any of the events.

I know that it wasn't given much detail in either my high school nor university history courses. I'd have to say that an entire segment of society having the **** kicked out of them for 100 years after they were "free" and "equal" is a pretty important topic for learning and discussion. The subjugation and exploitation of blacks occurred for roughly 2/3 of the entire history of the American republic. That's a simple fact.

Just because it's been intentionally swept under the rug as much as possible over the years doesn't make it "unimportant". It's a crucial ingredient in the evolution of the republic and a very specific reason that we're embroiled in many of the social conflicts we are at this very moment. It's defined America as much as any other chain of events in our history.

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

Because at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter much in the grand sweep of history. If something like this doesn't start a movement, or spark national outrage that causes other states or congress to act in some way that leaves a mark on history, it's just a very crappy thing that happened for even worse reasons a long time ago.

Lots of terrible, horrific things happened throughout history. There is simply no way to cover every one of these events in your average US History class. MAYBE in an Oklahoma history class, but if you did not grow up there, you probably aren't going to have the opportunity to take such a class.

---

There was no national outrage, congressional action, movement, etc because

1) "It was a bunch of uppity black folks that got out of line, forgot their place, and were disrespectful to whites." "It was their fault".

2) The stark reality if Jim Crow USA has never really been taught in history classes. It's glossed over pretty well. There's a difference between not covering all the events and not discussing any of the events.

I know that it wasn't given much detail in either my high school nor university history courses. I'd have to say that an entire segment of society having the **** kicked out of them for 100 years after they were "free" and "equal" is a pretty important topic for learning and discussion. The subjugation and exploitation of blacks occurred for roughly 2/3 of the entire history of the American republic. That's a simple fact.

Just because it's been intentionally swept under the rug as much as possible over the years doesn't make it "unimportant". It's a crucial ingredient in the evolution of the republic and a very specific reason that we're embroiled in many of the social conflicts we are at this very moment. It's defined America as much as any other chain of events in our history.

---

Get over yourself.

The question was why he had never heard of this specific event.

Obviously any remedial US history class would cover slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow and the civil rights movement. Anyone making a claim otherwise is outright lying.

But no US history class has the time to delve into every race-based atrocity in the history of the country. Further it is unnecessary to do so in order to convey the reality of the role that race has played in our history. No conspiracy, no "sweeping things under the rug", no devious plan to gloss over evil America's sordid, racist past, just the reality that, while terrible, this was primarily a local issue that had little impact beyond Oklahoma.

In 1997, I had Oklahoma history (highschool) in a classroom 70 miles from Tulsa. We spent exactly 0 minutes learning about the tulsa race riots. The only reason I knew anything about it was because I happened to open the book to THE 1 PAGE that covered the event. I was shocked to learn we had a race riot in our state. In my mind i was getting ready to read about something like the Rodney King ordeal in LA, but was let down when it was described as the 2 sides shooting at each other and the whites burning the black neighborhood. I remember the death toll being 30 something.

Little did i know that in my lifetime that would be considered a mostly peaceful protest.

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

Because at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter much in the grand sweep of history. If something like this doesn't start a movement, or spark national outrage that causes other states or congress to act in some way that leaves a mark on history, it's just a very crappy thing that happened for even worse reasons a long time ago.

Lots of terrible, horrific things happened throughout history. There is simply no way to cover every one of these events in your average US History class. MAYBE in an Oklahoma history class, but if you did not grow up there, you probably aren't going to have the opportunity to take such a class.

---

There was no national outrage, congressional action, movement, etc because

1) "It was a bunch of uppity black folks that got out of line, forgot their place, and were disrespectful to whites." "It was their fault".

2) The stark reality if Jim Crow USA has never really been taught in history classes. It's glossed over pretty well. There's a difference between not covering all the events and not discussing any of the events.

I know that it wasn't given much detail in either my high school nor university history courses. I'd have to say that an entire segment of society having the **** kicked out of them for 100 years after they were "free" and "equal" is a pretty important topic for learning and discussion. The subjugation and exploitation of blacks occurred for roughly 2/3 of the entire history of the American republic. That's a simple fact.

Just because it's been intentionally swept under the rug as much as possible over the years doesn't make it "unimportant". It's a crucial ingredient in the evolution of the republic and a very specific reason that we're embroiled in many of the social conflicts we are at this very moment. It's defined America as much as any other chain of events in our history.

---

Sounds like an issue with your education. We covered Jim Crow quite a bit in my public schools starting in junior high and all the way through A&M and then picked up in my private school graduate degree program. And this all happened in the 80s and 90s for me.

I disagree that it's defined America as much as any other event in our history. That is such a myopic view of U.S. history which includes Colonial history, so roughly 400 years. Is it a major part of our history, yes. Is what primarily defines us. No. That's why historical scholars, both black and white, have rejected so much of what the 1619 Project has tried to say about slavery and Jim Crow as it relates to all of American history.

I've already posted this information, but it would serve you well to seek to understand how the black community rebuilt Greenwood to better than it was before 1921 and how it flourished as a community from 1930-1960.

While ending Jim Crow was absolutely a good thing. Many changes done for Black Civil Rights in the 1960s were good things. But many things have absolulty destroyed the black community. The 1960s urban renewal, government housing programs, forced desegregation(as opposed to simply ending forced segregation), and government welfare are all things that destroyed not just the vibrant black economic center of Greenwood, but many areas like Greenwood throughout the country. Before there was the crime ridden economically depressed Harlem of the 1970s, there was the vibrant black culture of Harlem from 1930-1960.

Slavery, Jim Crow, and events like the 1921 race war of Tulsa didn't produce George Floyd's Black America. The Great Society programs of the 1960s have done that.

I've never heard of this event either, but it seems to me that Biden bringing this up is litterally an effort to roil America. There is no way we heal as a nation when you have race baiting and racism being pushed from the highest office in the land.

policywonk98 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

Because at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter much in the grand sweep of history. If something like this doesn't start a movement, or spark national outrage that causes other states or congress to act in some way that leaves a mark on history, it's just a very crappy thing that happened for even worse reasons a long time ago.

Lots of terrible, horrific things happened throughout history. There is simply no way to cover every one of these events in your average US History class. MAYBE in an Oklahoma history class, but if you did not grow up there, you probably aren't going to have the opportunity to take such a class.

---

There was no national outrage, congressional action, movement, etc because

1) "It was a bunch of uppity black folks that got out of line, forgot their place, and were disrespectful to whites." "It was their fault".

2) The stark reality if Jim Crow USA has never really been taught in history classes. It's glossed over pretty well. There's a difference between not covering all the events and not discussing any of the events.

I know that it wasn't given much detail in either my high school nor university history courses. I'd have to say that an entire segment of society having the **** kicked out of them for 100 years after they were "free" and "equal" is a pretty important topic for learning and discussion. The subjugation and exploitation of blacks occurred for roughly 2/3 of the entire history of the American republic. That's a simple fact.

Just because it's been intentionally swept under the rug as much as possible over the years doesn't make it "unimportant". It's a crucial ingredient in the evolution of the republic and a very specific reason that we're embroiled in many of the social conflicts we are at this very moment. It's defined America as much as any other chain of events in our history.

---

Sounds like an issue with your education. We covered Jim Crow quite a bit in my public schools starting in junior high and all the way through A&M and then picked up in my private school graduate degree program. And this all happened in the 80s and 90s for me.

I disagree that it's defined America as much as any other event in our history. That is such a myopic view of U.S. history which includes Colonial history, so roughly 400 years. Is it a major part of our history, yes. Is what primarily defines us. No. That's why historical scholars, both black and white, have rejected so much of what the 1619 Project has tried to say about slavery and Jim Crow as it relates to all of American history.

---

True.

Now you could make a case that the Democratic Party' s insistence on maintaining identity politics and de-facto encouraging continued race segregation and strife has been a major defining aspect, and maybe the one that will eventually destroy the Great Experiment.

What is really tragic is what the European Americans have done to the Native Americans. My heritage, at times is somewhat unsavory at best.

I'm surprised most haven't at least heard of this. I remember learning about it in high school history (public school).

But like most things that happened in history it doesn't matter today. Remember it, learn from it, and move on. History is important but I don't know why people are so obsessed with righting the wrongs of the past.

Meh, most of the Indians died from disease that we just happened to bring over. Even after that it's just survival of the fittest, the same way it's been since the beginning of time. I'm sure as hell glad the Europeans and then Americans replaced the Indians. We wouldn't be the super power we are now otherwise.

jwright4288 said:

---

I'm surprised most haven't at least heard of this. I remember learning about it in high school history (public school).

But like most things that happened in history it doesn't matter today. Remember it, learn from it, and move on. History is important but I don't know why people are so obsessed with righting the wrongs of the past.

---

Because the people trying to do it or saying we should do it, want to blame the distant past for consequences of personal choices being made in the present. That way there is no accountability and personal responsibility. The idea that 2021 black America, especially young black men, lack agency, is ludicrous.

jwright4288 said:

---

I'm surprised most haven't at least heard of this. I remember learning about it in high school history (public school).

But like most things that happened in history it doesn't matter today. Remember it, learn from it, and move on. History is important but I don't know why people are so obsessed with righting the wrongs of the past.

---

That's true. But it may be a qualitative difference between post-2000 and pre-2000 education. Like a few of us had said, you did hear and read about this, just in passing, the last decades of the 20th.

On your general point, putting the past on trial is futile and stupid. Its even deceptive and false when done by rich activists getting rich off doing it. The only ones have any respect for are those quietly digging to find the fuller story and facts, like some of that Tulsa attempted grave tracing.

You can't recover a second of history. Learn from it to improve the present. If there are living direct victims and culprits, things like reparations and recriminations can make sense, but not when they are all dead. Each generation represents a fresh start if they will only take it.

It incidentally is one of the more subtle and imo unassailable arguments for term limits- these geriatric jackanapes in Congress and the DNC are keeping the nation thoroughly locked into the 60's activism and brainwashing their youth to think the same even though those issues are past, those battles fought. They need to be cast out wholesale.

I just can't wait for my reparations from the English. Got a lot of Irish in me so that's gotta be worth a few thousand potatoes at least

Can't be over-emphasized:

Quote:

---

While ending Jim Crow was absolutely a good thing. Many changes done for Black Civil Rights in the 1960s were good things. But many things have absolulty destroyed the black community. The 1960s urban renewal, government housing programs, forced desegregation(as opposed to simply ending forced segregation), and government welfare are all things that destroyed not just the vibrant black economic center of Greenwood, but many areas like Greenwood throughout the country. Before there was the crime ridden economically depressed Harlem of the 1970s, there was the vibrant black culture of Harlem from 1930-1960.

Slavery, Jim Crow, and events like the 1921 race war of Tulsa didn't produce George Floyd's Black America. The Great Society programs of the 1960s have done that.

---

And would add for the 21st C, the Democratic Party-Mainstream Media fusion's faux activism to get votes, get rich, and foster dependency is the one that foster and continues to create Floyd's Black America. Those are the criminals of this century as the promoters of Jim Crow were in their era.

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm hearing and reading so many disparate numbers of # dead, # of homes and businesses burned, etc.

We have historians on this board, can one of you direct me to a credible source on what really happened?

TIA.

---

Here you go Aggiehawg, straight from the University of Tulsa Library:

McFarlin Library Special Collections: TULSA RACE MASSACRE

titan said:

---

As for the story, don't see any reason Old McDonald's link to their archives would lead you astray. Primary sources beats activist articles every time. If want to avoid present day editorializing you could look for an account written in the 90's maybe.

---

Yes and no. The problem with primary sources from the time (really any time) is twofold: Human memory isn't all that great, and there is bias in everything that is recorded. This goes both ways.

For one, the more people remember things, the moe they tend to change the details until the facts are completely different. It's like a personal game of telephone. There's plenty of examples of this, and plenty of research on it. As you tell and retell stories or recall memories, your brain fills in any blanks and alters bits and pieces to conform to other's accounts you've heard or to how you've processed the event psychologically. If you interview someone even days after the fact, what you're getting is likely not completely accurate. Months or years after the fact and it's unreliable at best. Even vivid, flashbulb memories are susceptible to alteration and conflagration.

As for media accounts, expecting any media accounts from any point in recorded history to be factually accurate and free of bias is akin to expecting the same of any account today. In 100 years, people doing research on 2020 may say that what we saw in Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis was, "mostly peaceful," without a twinge of sarcasm because that's what was recorded by the media. In the same vein, the accuracy of what was recorded and how 100 years ago is questionable at best. It's like Gell-Mann amnesia, but over time: You know modern sources of information to be unreliable and biased, but you treat historical sources as accurate depictions of the events of their time. You mention contemporary activist articles, but then refer to previously published articles as if they're objectively written and sensationalism, media and personal bias, and poor journalism are only recent developments.

Quote:

---

As for media accounts, expecting any media accounts from any point in recorded history to be factually accurate and free of bias is akin to expecting the same of any account today.

---

Hell no, that's right. I would never say that and was not. I was not speaking generally, but specifically. The 1990's were a period of greater even-handed approaches to things now far enough back in time to be less "scab-wound" in nature, but recent enough in time for fresh research to actually find new information.

If you look at Biden's speech, its a good example of how could not expect this kind of thing to not be unrecognizably politicized in this climate. But there have been climates where the `care about' factor has been far less, and the objectivity such as it is, greater.

Primary sources in the above is really saying --- sources at least having some connection and foundation in the event. Not made up whole cloth.

Spyderman said:

---

What is really tragic is what the European Americans have done to the Native Americans. My heritage, at times is somewhat unsavory at best.

---

90% of "what was done to Native Americans" was inadvertent. European diseases killed off possibly as much as 90% of the 1491 population in the Americas.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

---

They were looting and rioting just like they do today. Nothing has changed.

Spyderman said:

---

What is really tragic is what the European Americans have done to the Native Americans. My heritage, at times is somewhat unsavory at best.

---

What Indians did to each other is heinous as well: ritual torture, human sacrifice on a massive scale, enslavement. The coming of European reformed/evangelical Christianity was the best possible outcome for this country.

Again, what happened in Tulsa in 1921 is that a (relatively small) black mob surrounded the sheriff's office/jail over a black male who was in his custody, and then there was some violence, and then a larger mob of white democrats got involved and angry with the police so they irrationally burned down the largely/entirely black neighborhood and a lot of people were killed.

This was not dissimilar to antifa/BLM riots in 2020-present.

nortex97 said:

---

Again, what happened in Tulsa in 1921 is that a (relatively small) black mob surrounded the sheriff's office/jail over a black male who was in his custody, and then there was some violence, and then a larger mob of white democrats got involved and angry with the police so they irrationally burned down the largely/entirely black neighborhood and a lot of people were killed.

This was not dissimilar to antifa/BLM riots in 2020-present.

---

Another problem with this and what makes Biden so out of line along with his party-press is this is like dredging up Nazi propaganda and Kristalnacht events and stories and loudly rubbing Merkel-era German's faces in it. When those Germans are having to bear having their country gradually beaten down by a Muslim influx. In other words, Germans that just have no culpability or even the frame of mind of the culprits of a century ago.

But may well be put back into it, by precisely the LEFT insistence on reviving the past.

nortex97 said:

---

Again, what happened in Tulsa in 1921 is that a (relatively small) black mob surrounded the sheriff's office/jail over a black male who was in his custody, and then there was some violence, and then a larger mob of white democrats got involved and angry with the police so they irrationally burned down the largely/entirely black neighborhood and a lot of people were killed.

This was not dissimilar to antifa/BLM riots in 2020-present.

---

Yep. Then blame it on whitey. nothing has changed.

damiond said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

---

They were looting and rioting just like they do today. Nothing has changed.

---

Not according to the archives posted previously. According to the historical record, the mobs burning and looting were white, and their targets were the homes and businesses of blacks.

McFarlin Library Special Collections: TULSA RACE MASSACRE

CSTXAg92 said:

---

damiond said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

---

They were looting and rioting just like they do today. Nothing has changed.

---

Not according to the archives posted previously. According to the historical record, the mobs burning and looting were white, and their targets were the homes and businesses of blacks.

McFarlin Library Special Collections: TULSA RACE MASSACRE

---

Democrats then, democrats now

CanyonAg77 said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

damiond said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

---

They were looting and rioting just like they do today. Nothing has changed.

---

Not according to the archives posted previously. According to the historical record, the mobs burning and looting were white, and their targets were the homes and businesses of blacks.

McFarlin Library Special Collections: TULSA RACE MASSACRE

---

Democrats then, democrats now

---

WOW... Thanks for bringing that small - and poingnant - detail into focus Canyon. How very true.