No clear analysis exists as to the extent of the losses suffered by Greenwood residents and their descendants, though some recent studies put the figure at $200 million.
Good to know journalists are still doing the same things they were doing in 1921.
The link about Greenwood I posted yesterday from NPR said 20 million in modern day USD. They have no real clue what the actual damage was, they just grab whatever number they can and run with it.
Most sources I have seen say $30 million, which really does not seem like a lot. It probably was a lot for a people that 60 years earlier were slaves owning nothing.
We could take compound interest into account, rather than only inflation. But if we do, then the Indians who got $30 for Manhattan could buy all of New York, so it was actually a fair deal.
Yeah, I'm not surprised former slaves who build everything from scratch went "not today motherfuckers" and engaged in a pitched gun battle.
I'm still failing to see where even the black militiamen did anything wrong. Maybe shooting at the National Guard was a bad idea, but if you really think the white people have gone crazy and are trying to kill everyone, I'm not really gonna be surprised if you tell me that they shot at the National Guard.
Like, if you told me that Japanese citizens shot at US soldiers who were trying to intern them, my answer would be: "obviously".
I would say that the damage is at least "very substantial".
Considering the level of gunfire, and the amount of buildings set ablaze without the ability of the fire department to put out fires in predominately wooden structures, I'd have to assume we're looking at some Watts level destruction.
1920's Tulsa was a hotbed of criminality. Now, we don't have uniform crime reports from that era, but do you really believe that it was somehow less criminal than any other "prosperous middle-class neighborhood" that's black? Crime tracks race much better than socioeconomic status, as long as there have been statistics to measure it.
Now, we don't have uniform crime reports from that era
"I don't have any evidence, but I'm racist so my feelings count for more than any real data ever could."
do you really believe that it was somehow less criminal than any other "prosperous middle-class neighborhood" that's black? Crime tracks race much better than socioeconomic status, as long as there have been statistics to measure it.
Yes, because I've had to literally prove to other racists before that there are communities in America that are >85% Black, have an average family income of over $250,000 a year, and have effectively no crime.
Socio-economic status does not correlate well to crime, only violent crime, and only in the largest swathes. People making over $250,000 a year are not likely to commit violent crime. There's little incentive to. Age and prevalence of jobless men is probably a better corollary to violent crime.
Culture is a far better indicator of crime, and when you are talking about a community of people who have no interaction with the welfare state and literally developed communities from scratch, including white color professions, this is not a neighborhood that is likely to have a problem with crime.
But again, you have no evidence to work off, so the whole topic is moot. Not to mention that the crime rate had nothing to do with the riot.
There isn't good evidence. There is better evidence of arrest vs socioeconomic status, but I'm sure you're in the "theys arrested cause theys black, not cause they commits crime" camp.
About the only decent crime statistics you'll find for the 20's and earlier are for serial killers. And yeah, they're disproportionately black.
You're falling for a Wakanda myth here. Greenwood was prosperous by black standards, but were talking about an occasional mansion in a sprawl of huts without electricity and running water. It was still poor as hell, even if it was peak black civilization.
This is a conversation about property value. Criminality is relevant.
There isn't good evidence. There is better evidence of arrest vs socioeconomic status, but I'm sure you're in the "theys arrested cause theys black, not cause they commits crime" camp.
I wouldn't be here if I were.
Greenwood was prosperous by black standards, but were talking about an occasional mansion in a sprawl of huts without electricity and running water.
It was prosperous by all the data I've seen whether or not your too blinded by your own motivated reasoning to recognize that you have no evidence of the rampant crime and poverty you assert because "black man black"
This is a conversation about property value. Criminality is relevant.
You were the one who asserted that crime was rampant with absolutely zero evidence.
Has anyone noticed that these type interests only become a huge thing after something in pop culture brings it attention? I've known about the Tulsa and Black Wall Street for a while but it's not exactly something taught in schools, but ever since that damn Watchmen season everybody and their mother has to make sure this incident is front and center. Another interesting one is "colonizer" in a derogatory context being used fucking EVERYWHERE after that damn capeshit movie.
Well, in this case, it is the 100 year anniversary, and the Black National Socialists are using it as their own personal Beer Hall Putsch in order to advocate for more racialist gifting, laws, and privileges.
President Joe Biden will visit Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Tuesday to commemorate one of the bloodiest race massacres in U.S. history.
Again, they are lying even about that.
You want to talk about "bloodiest Race Massacres" you need to have:
a massacre, this wasn't one, it's a genuine race-riot, though battle or still count from the descriptions.
very high causalities - we can only confirm 10 dead whites and 20 some dead blacks. So somewhere around 30 confirmed.
There are estimates that there were hundreds of dead, but there's no evidence, and no mass graves, despite people desperately looking.
I can imagine that it felt like hundreds of people died when thousands of people fled from the multiple rolling gun-battles and the legit hundred or more wounded. But there's no evidence of it.
There have been way worse "Race Massacres", many of them in the Civil War or during Reconstruction. There are a few Indian Massacres, but due to the limited concentrations of Indians & settlers, these tended never to stray past 100 beyond full scale battles like Little Big Horn, Wounded Knee, Nat Turner's rebellion, or the Colifax Massacre. All of which we have better evidence for. And in all of those cases, they are unquestionable massacres involving armed individuals slaughtering either defeated, surrendered, or unarmed belligerents or civilians.
One study examining the aftermath of the Rodney King riots found that extensive economic fallout haunted Los Angeles. The original $1 billion in property damage was eclipsed by a nearly $4 billion drop in economic activity over the long run, reducing tax revenue by $125 million. Other research into the 1960s civil rights era riots found similar consequences, in particular, “negative, persistent, and economically significant effects of riots on the value of black-owned housing” and “a 10 percent decline in the total value of black-owned property in cities.”
Great. So bump up Greenwood's worth by another factor of 10, and you're comparable to the King riots. And then we can start looking at what they did this summer.
the financial cost of the rioting is on its way to at least $2 billion, making it the most expensive in history.
I say we have the race-baiting journos pay back the reparations for all of it (going all the way back to Tulsa), since they keep insisting on encouraging the problems.
There was never any sort of federal investigation despite the fact that over 1,000 Black homes and businesses were burned to the ground and more than 10,000 people were made homeless. The federal government never stepped in and tried to figure out what happened
Never mind there were state commissions and criminal investigations...
A commander-in-chief acknowledging "the worst single incident of racial violence in American history," according to Ellsworth, is significant for the focus Biden's visit will put on the centennial and broader efforts to grapple with the nation's past failings on racial equality.
Again, not really.
Several of the Massacres under the orders of the Democratic Party during Reconstruction were worse.
I must have missed where I got the vote by allying with these people, as women did.
Now you're just shifting the goalposts, because your earlier argument was pure guilt by association with people 100 years in the past. Apparently, in your universe, causality and time are reversed, and events in the past are the result of people being female today.
If that is so, then since the Holocaust was started by a white man, it is literally your fault.
If they want to push the racism narrative, let's push it, and staple the bill to their fucking cult manifesto.
I'm all for making this argument ironically, and shoving it in the face of every white woman who is a feminist screeching about 'racism', but you seem to actually believe it.
From their own source on the damages:
Good to know journalists are still doing the same things they were doing in 1921.
The difference is back in 1921 they had an excuse to be ignorant and stupid.
Nowadays? Nope.
Probably $200 million in 2020 USD. Which wouldn't be crazy for thousands of rounds fired, and dozens of building burnt down.
I mean, what did Kenosha get hit with? It's probably similar in damage.
The link about Greenwood I posted yesterday from NPR said 20 million in modern day USD. They have no real clue what the actual damage was, they just grab whatever number they can and run with it.
Most sources I have seen say $30 million, which really does not seem like a lot. It probably was a lot for a people that 60 years earlier were slaves owning nothing.
We could take compound interest into account, rather than only inflation. But if we do, then the Indians who got $30 for Manhattan could buy all of New York, so it was actually a fair deal.
Yeah, I'm not surprised former slaves who build everything from scratch went "not today motherfuckers" and engaged in a pitched gun battle.
I'm still failing to see where even the black militiamen did anything wrong. Maybe shooting at the National Guard was a bad idea, but if you really think the white people have gone crazy and are trying to kill everyone, I'm not really gonna be surprised if you tell me that they shot at the National Guard.
Like, if you told me that Japanese citizens shot at US soldiers who were trying to intern them, my answer would be: "obviously".
I would say that the damage is at least "very substantial".
Considering the level of gunfire, and the amount of buildings set ablaze without the ability of the fire department to put out fires in predominately wooden structures, I'd have to assume we're looking at some Watts level destruction.
Maybe 200mm if it wasn't a black neighborhood, with all the adjacent problems. Probably closer to 25mm as it stood.
What adjacent problems? It was a prosperous middle-class neighborhood.
1920's Tulsa was a hotbed of criminality. Now, we don't have uniform crime reports from that era, but do you really believe that it was somehow less criminal than any other "prosperous middle-class neighborhood" that's black? Crime tracks race much better than socioeconomic status, as long as there have been statistics to measure it.
"I don't have any evidence, but I'm racist so my feelings count for more than any real data ever could."
Yes, because I've had to literally prove to other racists before that there are communities in America that are >85% Black, have an average family income of over $250,000 a year, and have effectively no crime.
Socio-economic status does not correlate well to crime, only violent crime, and only in the largest swathes. People making over $250,000 a year are not likely to commit violent crime. There's little incentive to. Age and prevalence of jobless men is probably a better corollary to violent crime.
Culture is a far better indicator of crime, and when you are talking about a community of people who have no interaction with the welfare state and literally developed communities from scratch, including white color professions, this is not a neighborhood that is likely to have a problem with crime.
But again, you have no evidence to work off, so the whole topic is moot. Not to mention that the crime rate had nothing to do with the riot.
There isn't good evidence. There is better evidence of arrest vs socioeconomic status, but I'm sure you're in the "theys arrested cause theys black, not cause they commits crime" camp.
https://archive.is/wrjZ9
About the only decent crime statistics you'll find for the 20's and earlier are for serial killers. And yeah, they're disproportionately black.
You're falling for a Wakanda myth here. Greenwood was prosperous by black standards, but were talking about an occasional mansion in a sprawl of huts without electricity and running water. It was still poor as hell, even if it was peak black civilization.
This is a conversation about property value. Criminality is relevant.
I wouldn't be here if I were.
It was prosperous by all the data I've seen whether or not your too blinded by your own motivated reasoning to recognize that you have no evidence of the rampant crime and poverty you assert because "black man black"
You were the one who asserted that crime was rampant with absolutely zero evidence.
Has anyone noticed that these type interests only become a huge thing after something in pop culture brings it attention? I've known about the Tulsa and Black Wall Street for a while but it's not exactly something taught in schools, but ever since that damn Watchmen season everybody and their mother has to make sure this incident is front and center. Another interesting one is "colonizer" in a derogatory context being used fucking EVERYWHERE after that damn capeshit movie.
Well, in this case, it is the 100 year anniversary, and the Black National Socialists are using it as their own personal Beer Hall Putsch in order to advocate for more racialist gifting, laws, and privileges.
Again, they are lying even about that.
You want to talk about "bloodiest Race Massacres" you need to have:
There are estimates that there were hundreds of dead, but there's no evidence, and no mass graves, despite people desperately looking.
I can imagine that it felt like hundreds of people died when thousands of people fled from the multiple rolling gun-battles and the legit hundred or more wounded. But there's no evidence of it.
There have been way worse "Race Massacres", many of them in the Civil War or during Reconstruction. There are a few Indian Massacres, but due to the limited concentrations of Indians & settlers, these tended never to stray past 100 beyond full scale battles like Little Big Horn, Wounded Knee, Nat Turner's rebellion, or the Colifax Massacre. All of which we have better evidence for. And in all of those cases, they are unquestionable massacres involving armed individuals slaughtering either defeated, surrendered, or unarmed belligerents or civilians.
You mean like the Jamestown massacre? Where Indians killed a quarter of the colonists?
Sure. That's probably one of the biggest I've seen in the continental US.
source
Great. So bump up Greenwood's worth by another factor of 10, and you're comparable to the King riots. And then we can start looking at what they did this summer.
source
I say we have the race-baiting journos pay back the reparations for all of it (going all the way back to Tulsa), since they keep insisting on encouraging the problems.
Never mind there were state commissions and criminal investigations...
The FBI was 17 years old and was busy with the mob. Why would the feds investigate something that didn't cross state lines?
Leftists think that the FBI are super cops that normal cops call in when they can't handle it.
Again, not really.
Several of the Massacres under the orders of the Democratic Party during Reconstruction were worse.
The media needs to be held accountable for their actions. And I mean individual journalists need to be held accountable. They are destroying society.
They literally caused the race riot.
They probably had flying cars and shit.
Wakandamerica.
All these productive people and they couldn’t rebuild it because…
Black people terrorize people, white women are most guilty. K.
The Holocaust started by a white man. It's literally your fault.
Now you're just shifting the goalposts, because your earlier argument was pure guilt by association with people 100 years in the past. Apparently, in your universe, causality and time are reversed, and events in the past are the result of people being female today.
If that is so, then since the Holocaust was started by a white man, it is literally your fault.
I'm all for making this argument ironically, and shoving it in the face of every white woman who is a feminist screeching about 'racism', but you seem to actually believe it.
Actually, it wasn't.
The riot was provoked by the media. The white lady declined to press charges during the police investigation.
If you want to go after white women, go after The Scotsboro Boys case.
Are... are you aware that there are 'white women' among your ancestors?
My mother dragged my entire body through her vagina.
This is not only rape, but genital vore.
Never forget.
Never forgive.
/s.