NPR Rewriting History Of Tulsa Race Riot
(archive.is)
Comments (66)
sorted by:
Allegedly offended= Allegedly raped. Never mind the armed black men that showed up at the court and started the riots.
So the most affluent black community in existence couldn’t rebuild over 20 million in damages by current standards, but the billions caused by “peaceful protests” is a-ok right?
This entire story screams bullshit, Greenwood has always been treated as the Atlantis of black people, yet the massively thriving economy couldn’t recover. Over ten thousand people homeless from 1125 homes. So there were about 9 people per home on average, totally sounds like a thriving economy.
> the Atlantis of black people couldn't recover
> black people are typically stereotyped as being unable to swim
really makes you think
Not really, allegedly assaulted. As in: allegedly grabbed her arm. The media sensationalized the whole thing.
The alleged rape was the account of a black woman’s memoir. Which shows that the media lies was even taken as fact by black bystanders.
LOOOOOL
Oh so it was fake news that created it.
Just like fake news caused the death of those five Dallas cops, and the white couple visiting the grave of their son who died in Vietnam.
Repeat for most events in human history and there you have it.
I'm still convinced the whole snake-oil thing from the 19th century was a power grab by the government. It used to be what you put in your body, and the doctors you see to maintain that body, was no one's business but your own. Today there are stacks of government-authorized permits behind for every aspect of how one chooses to deal with their health.
Still is.
Many such cases.
Commies being intentionally misleading about historical events to further their narrative? I'm shocked... SHOCKED! .... well, not that shocked
Im not shocked at all. NPR has to go back 100 years to show some historical no longer relevant racism to keep the narrative alive. Then they also have interviews with some octogenarians about what happened to them 60 years ago.
They still do.
They skipped the lead-up by a whole fuck-ton. This information is comming from just wikipedia to show you how truly biased this is going to be.
Lyncherdom was already a problem in Oklahoma, as a white accused murderer had been previously lynched by a white mob. In this case, the suspect, Mr. Rowland was investigated for a possible assault and was briefly detained. The alleged victim of the assault was not interested in pressing charges.
None the less, the media fanned the flames of outrage and helped to send a white lynchmob to the courthouse where the Mr. Rowland was being held.
Black residents assumed that the police may turn Mr. Rowland over to the mob and gathered weapons to escort him out, since the police had not intended to press charges. Some members of the black community were worried that this would cause a confrontation because of the fevered pitch the media had whipped people up into.
This is the statement given by the Sherrif:
Key phrase: "I saw a car full of negroes driving through the streets with guns; I saw Bill McCullough and told him those negroes would cause trouble"
Now remember what NPR lead the story with:
NPR is doing the same shit that the media did 100 years ago. Riling people up at the sight of men with guns.
Whites assumed that blacks had taken over the police and were letting a rapist go free because they saw black people with guns. Now NPR is pushing an identical narrative that the police were in support of the other side because they saw men with guns.
The media is the enemy of the people.
Anyways. Law enforcement was continuing to hold the white mob at bay (not in support of it), and the National Guard armory was already attacked by a white mob attempting to seize weapons from them (again, not in support of it). The situation at the court-house degraded quickly and it led to an exchange of gunfire that led 10 whites and 2 blacks dead. The white mob, outnumbering the armed blacks 2,000-50 forced them back into the rest of the town and seem to target blacks indiscriminately as the group of 50 withdrew.
The narrative at the court-house appears to be the origin of a "negro uprising" as that stemmed from claims that the police where being controlled by a black militia. This rumor seems to have spread through official channels as the situation spiraled out of control.
White racial partisans appeared to launch, what I would refer to as, raids into the black neighborhood of Greenwood. These raids were met with stiff resistance, and heavy gunfire in response. Where successful, white partisans burned buildings and fired on white firefighters who attempted to put out blazes. They also fired on a train of non-combatants that they assumed was a trainload of black partisan reinforcements. The white partisans would also seize black servants of white families as they raided white communities as well, and these black servants would then be taken to law enforcement. How that worked when LE still had no idea what was going on, makes no sense to me.
However, during the conflict, it's clear that this was not all one side. The initial push by white partisans was one-sided by as non-combatants fled Greenwood, black partisans seemed to engage in, what I would call, combat patrols for white partisans and cause ensuing gunfights. Black partisans also seemed to take up sniper positions as well, firing on white partisans.
Again, the claim of "fortified by law enforcement" is a curious one to me, as white Firefighters report being actively shot at by White Partisan raiders as they attempted to put out fires in Greenwood. And this was inspired by an exchange of gunfire at the courthouse which the police were protecting.
Once the National Guard arrived to restore order, it appears that the white partisans were able to be dispersed rather peaceably, but the remaining black partisans in Greenwood seemed to be hostile to the predominantly white National Guard forces... no shit. Apparently, the National Guard did clear out Greenwood due to receiving black partisan sniper fire, and a few small skirmishes. I don't doubt for a moment that due to the terror of the situation, the remaining black partisans of Greenwood assumed that the National Guard was there to kill them.
The National Guard seemed to somehow receive the rumor about a "negro uprising" and they seemed to treat Greenwood in that way, conducting mass arrests under martial law of many blacks in the area. IIRC from previous research, this may have been from local/state government forces that were on the side of the white partisans passing along bad information.
As to whether or not the National Guard was acting in explicit support of white partisans, this line from Wikipedia is pretty telling:
The NG were probably not white partisans, since they were still shooting at white partisans in later weeks.
And as for the famous "dropping bombs on people", there appears to be no evidence of this besides... ahem... discovered witness testimony that only appeared past the end of the millennium. Law enforcement admit to there being 1 plane they used for observation, there is apparently no evidence to support the claims of turpentine bombs, or strafing runs.
The article actually doesn't contain much in the way of a description of the events but it seems pretty clear to me that you can't call this a "massacre" even from a source as biased as Wikipedia who already changed the name of the damn article.
I'm also alarmed by the use of sources that were "discovered". Not to mention the heavy politicization of the events.
You don't. That's why you don't tell the truth. It's more profitable this way.
What I found interesting is if you apply today's rates of violent crime to demographics in Tulsa those days it almost perfectly matches up with the number of lynched by race.
Which makes me think that maybe they were just primarily lynching people who actually had done heinous crimes.
Could be different in the deep south, but I wonder what an objective history would say. Before big cities and transport people generally knew what the score was and who the bad apples were.
While I doubt you have such figures, the problem with lynching is that it was applied to people who had allegedly done allegedly heinous crimes.
As was the case here, a man facing no charge was being called a rapist and the lynch mob was demanding his immediate execution with no trial.
In many other cases people who were convicted were unable to be sentenced before the lynch mob demanded they be turned over by the police.
In one case that Mark Twain identified, a black man was scheduled to be executed for a murder, but it was stayed a day for appeal. The crowd that had gathered for the hanging decided that he should be hung regardless of the judges order, attacked the police station where he was held, and 5 of them got shot to death for their troubles.
In another case, you had retards being lynched and set on fire for crimes they had allegedly done, despite the fact that they were not mentally fit to stand trial, and despite the fact that they would have no attorneys to defend them.
I'd say an objective history would say that lynch mobs aren't a community coming together to finish off someone they knew was bad. It was a massive virtue signal in a particularly violent society that enjoyed watching people die because it made them feel virtuous to do bad things to bad people... regardless of whether those people were bad, or could be proven bad, or whether or not the legal system was functioning normally.
There's a reason I call Cancel Culture, Lyncherdom. It's the same thing. Has anyone ever been cancelled erroneously or illegitimately? Of course. Does anyone actually give a shit about what happened? Fuck no. Are the people engaging in the canceling guilty of the shit they are raging about? Absolutely. Does everybody who involves themselves in it think they're doing it because they are good people? Unquestionably. Are they actually a bunch of savages that deserve worse than what they are doing to their target because of their self-righteous maliciousness? Without a doubt.
No doubt mob lynching isn't the fairest system of justice, but it doesn't appear to be racially biased - at least not at the time, in Tulsa.
Mark Twain isn't a good person to get your information from. For much of his life he was ambivalent toward or even approving of slavery, then when he changed his mind he used his wit and rhetoric to vilify slaveowners, even those who were financially stuck in a system they disapproved of.
The statues the violent mobs tore down in Virginia, all but one wrote how they were against slavery, but they didn't care because all southerners were just evil nazis to the mob. End of life Twain would be right there cheering them on, happily spreading lies about Charlottesville and everything else Woke.
I see literally no evidence of that.
While it is possible for lynching not to be racially based, to say that wasn't the case in Tulsa is just false when the media intentionally hyperbolized and racialized a non-event.
He sounds like someone who grew up in the antebellum south and eventually despised slavery.
Go look up the numbers and demographics I talked about, if you want to see evidence yourself.
If you haven't done this then you have presumption and belief, not evidence.
You said: at least not at the time, in Tulsa.
Go look up the incident, and try again. Don't give me this shit about "belief" when you don't know the facts of the case.
As I said: While it is possible for lynching not to be racially based, to say that wasn't the case in Tulsa is just false when the media intentionally hyperbolized and racialized a non-event.
There was no lynching in the incident, but even so one incident out of a large number does not show bias in the whole - you have to look at the whole to show that, and the data shows the opposite to what you want to believe.
I know you won't because you don't want to have your worldview changed, but go look up the crime numbers and demographics in Tulsa. It's exactly as I said.
It seems like you put a lot of faith in a wikipedia article, but the reality is nobody knows exactly how the incident went down and we never will. What you have are beliefs about what happened
And the real truth is STILL not out! For example, the real death toll was three thousand. Three thousand black people who had been living on that very street for thousands of years before Christopher Columbus arrived.
source: https://twitter.com/pine_tree_riots/status/1398812677418360832
Black Americans have the worst historical denialism. Black racism is predicated on lies about the history of blacks in America. They have been taught they are nothing but perennial victims, and that they are owed simply because they exist. This is not reality, in order to demonize racism academia has been cherry picking history to create these one sided stories. Imagine if we taught that Indians killed one third of colonists and was honest about their historical practices. Imagine if we taught the black on white violence spikes that created the Jim Crow laws and the crime ratio still has not changed today despite the advances of racial equality.
This is true in the north, where the migration of poorly acculturated Southern blacks led to barriers towards all blacks, but certainly not the case in the South, where it was part of the 'redemption' of the Southern states.
Racism, poverty, etc. are all nonsensical explanations for crime by the anointed. Being poor doesn't make you murder people.
I’ve been saying for years that if you don’t like the police presence then stop glorifying criminals and criminal behavior and stop glorifying having babies you can’t afford.
What honestly would help black people the most is to get the fuck out of black urban cities. Every self made black person I've met refuses to even entertain the idea of living in a urban environment. Getting out from under the thumb of Democrats and going for high roi technical jobs would bring more black people to middle if not upper class. Degrees from NYU in slam poetry aren’t going to make you a happy or successful person. The great migration opened up large venues black people, but have all stagnated since the “great society” movement.
Can’t argue there. My dad grew up in Philadelphia and he met my mom when he was in flight school in Tulsa. It’s also interesting that I’ve heard black people who live in the suburbs (especially those who grew up in the hood) say they are glad their kids don’t go to a majority black school.
Separation from a shitty culture does wonders for productive people.
In Candace Owens book she talks about a study showing that black kids do better academically around white kids and she was surprised at first but then realized that white friends of a black student most likely won’t harass them for academic achievement. I remember my sister was asked why she had so many white friends and she said because I don’t have to continually prove my blackness to them.
There is an obvious problem with that, in that they have to go somewhere. That "somewhere" is usually white communities, which is right around the time that the violent crime rates "mysteriously" start going up.
You can tell yourself it's not hereditary if it makes you feel any better, though it very possibly is, but the 85 average IQ is just a fact and regardless of why it's a massive factor.
And it's not 85 just in the states, it's the same or lower everywhere else too, even places with no historical or even current oppression of blacks, and with strong welfare states.
Which means that 1 in 6 blacks have an IQ under 70. But also explains why in this supposedly racist country immigrants from Somalia or Nigeria do so well, better than whites on average. Their IQs are on par with whites, as moving between continents is resource and information intensive and thus acts as a selection process.
I don't think most people realize how delibitating of a condition a 85 IQ is. Anything under 80 is considered as retarded. I don't mean that as a slur, I mean that retardation is the clinical term for that condition (borderline retardation if it's just under 80).
The army doens't take anyone with an IQ of under 83, because they've found that they're not useful for anything and including them makes it hard to maintain order.
IQ correlates with everything from financial success, health, life expectency, level of education, social status, emotional maturity, and productivity - to crime, impulse control, ability to delay gratification, violence, poverty, religious fanatisism, and competence.
But it's not the only factor, the correlations aren't absolute, it's not like there's nothing we can do to help and support people with low IQs, and it's not like they can't have full and meaningful lives. But they need to learn coping strategies, and it's something we need to start teaching children when they're young. We already do this with white children.
It's not a racism problem (left), but it's also not a cultural problem (right), nor a lack of fathers problem (center), although all of those things likely play a role. It's a biology problem.
Moving to somewhere else is not going to help. They feel resentful because many of them can't thrive in the modern world we've created and we're not giving them the tools they need to prosper, and I understand their frustration.
What honestly would help black people the most is to give them the same support that we give to white children, whom are placed in special needs classes if their IQ is 85 or lower, and not to worry about the optics since this would apply to half of blacks.
To give them the pedagogic support and academic followup and learning materials and qualified teachers that they need to be able to function in modern information heavy societies - as we already give to white kids with similar conditions.
And to take the ones with sub 75 IQs out of schools and put them in their own educational environments that can cater to their specific needs, where things can happen on their terms and in their tempo, and where they can't disrupt the other children, and can start building healthy strategies and habits for later in life.
But the political and social will to do something like this doesn't exist, and neither does the funding nor the teachers required. So we're left with a circle of blacks underperforming and leftists demanding increasingly more authoritarian powers in order to fix it by doing things that are not going to fix anything but create more demand for authoritarianism.
I think Thomas Sowell wrote about how northern blacks and whites got a long fairly well and then when southern blacks arrived a lot changed for the worse. But I’m paraphrasing but I know he mentioned something like that.
Detroit 19th century versus Detroit 20th century is quite easily the most drastic reversal of race relations before today.
That’s it. I remember Thomas Sowell wrote about that.
Yes, that's where I got it. It's very interesting and combats the narrative that there is just 'white racism' going up and down completely arbitrarily and without any agency.
The hurricanes caused a lot of them to scatter across the country.
Interesting. Any sources for the 1/3 of colonists? I figured it had to be a substantial number, but I've never heard anything that high.
And you're right about the historical practices. The Sioux were infamous for mutilating their slaves, torturing victims, cutting babies out of captive women, etc. Other Indians practiced cannibalism. Forced suicide/murder when a chief died. Other unpalatable practice.
The European colonialists were without a doubt brutal. But so were the Indians they met. Life was brutal.
The biggest falsehood is that “black people cannot be racist”
This claim appears only in the church of grievance studies.
I would propose that the black on white and black on hispanic violence statistics show that blacks are racist as fuck
black on asian violence has entered the chat
Question: why are Jews not blaming their poverty on pogroms, royal confiscations or the Holocaust?
Comment Reported for: Blood libel
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Attacks on entire identity groups
I knew Stormfags were batshit crazy, but I didn't think even they were batshit crazy enough to endorse the blood libel for which there's not a shred of evidence.
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
Comment Approved: You do not want me to start removing the word Fag.
My great grandfather’s business was destroyed but I know he started one or two other small businesses. I have as much validity as that lady but it’s no surprise that NPR wouldn’t want to hear from me. I don’t even like any history documentaries nowadays. Especially if there is a racial aspect because it’s a tool to push fake propaganda
There’s room to have honest discussions about past actions of peoples. The media never wants that because people could unify under those discussions and move forward from them.
Amen. I’ve been saying that for years.
Well, of course. They need something racially charged to replace Memorial Day.
"How can we depressing this nationalist holiday?"
You know these conversations happen, in media rooms across the country, based entirely on the shape of their coverage.
And the only conclusion you can draw from this: they hate you and your country, and they want to destroy both.
I have been hearing about this for the last 3 weeks. its the 100 year anniversary, and its about one of the few incidents that included actual racial violence that the left can use.
It all started, as most things do, with a woman lying and trying to set everyone against each other.
Note that ex confederate southern Democrats (aka the KKK) led much of the violence against this black community. Democrats still feel the same about minorities, but they’ve just added extra steps to cover their tracks.
Also note that a white womans unfounded allegations started the whole thing.
Did they go over the fact that it was spurred on by (((newspapers))) because blacks were getting too financially successful and independent?