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.
Historians say crime was rife due to the Tulsa oil field discovery bringing lots of money and opportunity in. Pretty common dynamic. In this environment, Greenwood had about 200 business to 10,000 people. The "favella" nature of it is noted. Most of the inhabitants were service workers in Tulsa proper. Its prosperity has always been overstated, simply because it's black. There were some middle class, a few rich, and a lot of poor. It's a neat thing that happened, but it wasn't quite the massive achievement people like to portray it as.
I don't give a shit about a black "man". Individuals should be judged individually, and the majority are fine of any race. It's the black "group" thing that matters. There are a lot of good black people, but there is a disproportionate tendency for violence. You won't really find it in the top decile, but it's in the demographic. Genetics explain a lot more than culture. Reduced functioning MAOA repeat allele variants prevalent in black populations not only fit the correlation, but the causation, due to the nature of the MAO-A enzyme.
Historians say crime was rife due to the Tulsa oil field discovery bringing lots of money and opportunity in. The "favella" nature of it is noted.
Then cite it. Maybe you deal with too much motivated reasoning, but I don't. Show me the evidence, because that is what will adjust my opinion. Just because there is a natural resource, it doesn't mean there's going to be high crime.
In this environment, Greenwood had about 200 business to 10,000 people.
Businesses to people doesn't make a lot of sense. That might include plenty of people who are not going to be working like children, women, and the elderly. Additionally, businesses are not 1:1. In places like this, you'd be looking at a major corporation employing a bulk of people. Then additional business aroudn the periphery suppying logistics, equipment, amenities, repair services, transportation, medicine, ect. As the town grows, you'll get more advanced white-collar services like finance, insurance, administration, as well as additional work involving family building like education, training, entertainment, etc.
Business to people might be quaint for me and my Austrian Economics fetish, demanding more sole proprietorships; but it doesn't actually tell me anything about crime or even unemployment.
I don't give a shit about a black "man". Individuals should be judged individually, and the majority are fine of any race.
And how, exactly, do you think I'm supposed to believe that with most of the shit that you say? If it's "most people are fine", then there isn't really a discussion that needs to be had. It would be like whining about the amount of Jews who've won the nobel price for mathematics.
You constantly shit on entire races of people, including the vast and sweeping majority of individuals.
You don't have to pretend to be a moderate with me. The normies aren't here and "hiding your power level" is just annoying.
Genetics explain a lot more than culture.
Culture explains the vast and sweeping majority of the differences both between and within races and ethnic groups.
"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.
Historians say crime was rife due to the Tulsa oil field discovery bringing lots of money and opportunity in. Pretty common dynamic. In this environment, Greenwood had about 200 business to 10,000 people. The "favella" nature of it is noted. Most of the inhabitants were service workers in Tulsa proper. Its prosperity has always been overstated, simply because it's black. There were some middle class, a few rich, and a lot of poor. It's a neat thing that happened, but it wasn't quite the massive achievement people like to portray it as.
I don't give a shit about a black "man". Individuals should be judged individually, and the majority are fine of any race. It's the black "group" thing that matters. There are a lot of good black people, but there is a disproportionate tendency for violence. You won't really find it in the top decile, but it's in the demographic. Genetics explain a lot more than culture. Reduced functioning MAOA repeat allele variants prevalent in black populations not only fit the correlation, but the causation, due to the nature of the MAO-A enzyme.
Then cite it. Maybe you deal with too much motivated reasoning, but I don't. Show me the evidence, because that is what will adjust my opinion. Just because there is a natural resource, it doesn't mean there's going to be high crime.
Businesses to people doesn't make a lot of sense. That might include plenty of people who are not going to be working like children, women, and the elderly. Additionally, businesses are not 1:1. In places like this, you'd be looking at a major corporation employing a bulk of people. Then additional business aroudn the periphery suppying logistics, equipment, amenities, repair services, transportation, medicine, ect. As the town grows, you'll get more advanced white-collar services like finance, insurance, administration, as well as additional work involving family building like education, training, entertainment, etc.
Business to people might be quaint for me and my Austrian Economics fetish, demanding more sole proprietorships; but it doesn't actually tell me anything about crime or even unemployment.
And how, exactly, do you think I'm supposed to believe that with most of the shit that you say? If it's "most people are fine", then there isn't really a discussion that needs to be had. It would be like whining about the amount of Jews who've won the nobel price for mathematics.
You constantly shit on entire races of people, including the vast and sweeping majority of individuals.
You don't have to pretend to be a moderate with me. The normies aren't here and "hiding your power level" is just annoying.
Culture explains the vast and sweeping majority of the differences both between and within races and ethnic groups.