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.
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.