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.
“There were people who did quite well, who lived in nice two-story homes with pianos and chandeliers and nice furniture,” Ellsworth said. “(But) it’s important to remember though that the vast majority of people who lived in Greenwood were poor, and they lived in shanties and shacks.” Only months before the massacre, the National Association of Social Workers had a meeting in Tulsa and found that about 90% of the African American population lived without indoor plumbing.
There's the reality. Not your idealized notion that fits your personal beliefs.
Hell, you have to look to 250k+ annual income communities to find a "middle class" black area that conforms to your worldview.
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.
The largest employer you're probably going to find in Greenwood would have been the Stradford Hotel. Most of the businesses were mom and pop shops.
Most of the population were Tulsa service industry workers. NYT lists them all with a nifty 3d map, if you want to find something bigger. Seems the biggest, though. Try not to be so pedantic.
If it's "most people are fine", then there isn't really a discussion that needs to be had.
"Most people" aren't the problem. It's the few shitty ones that come disproportionately from certain demographics. Western society can handle some shit, but it doesn't take much to overload our processing ability. I don't pretend to be moderate, because I'm not, but I always judge individuals individually.
Culture explains the vast and sweeping majority of the differences both between and within races and ethnic groups.
It doesn't. Black British culture has the same disproportion of homicide we see in the US. The only difference is the smaller size of the Black British population relative to other demographic groups. The black population of the US has always been disproportionately criminal, for as long as we have records on it. Even Jefferson remarked on it, though he thought they could be taught morality some day. Is your working theory that Black British and African American culture are the same? Is it that African American culture has always been awful, and therefore conducive to this sort of behavior? Do you have more than excuses?
Low functioning MAOA makes more sense. We're still only talking about ~5% of the US black population, but it's plenty to cause issues.
However, Tulsa was also a deeply troubled town. Crime rates were extremely high, and the city had been plagued by vigilantism, including the August 1920 lynching, by a white mob, of a white teenager accused of murder. Newspaper reports confirmed that the Tulsa police had done little to protect the lynching victim, who had been taken from his jail cell at the county courthouse.
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.
https://archive.is/91q2s
There's the reality. Not your idealized notion that fits your personal beliefs.
Hell, you have to look to 250k+ annual income communities to find a "middle class" black area that conforms to your worldview.
The largest employer you're probably going to find in Greenwood would have been the Stradford Hotel. Most of the businesses were mom and pop shops. Most of the population were Tulsa service industry workers. NYT lists them all with a nifty 3d map, if you want to find something bigger. Seems the biggest, though. Try not to be so pedantic.
"Most people" aren't the problem. It's the few shitty ones that come disproportionately from certain demographics. Western society can handle some shit, but it doesn't take much to overload our processing ability. I don't pretend to be moderate, because I'm not, but I always judge individuals individually.
It doesn't. Black British culture has the same disproportion of homicide we see in the US. The only difference is the smaller size of the Black British population relative to other demographic groups. The black population of the US has always been disproportionately criminal, for as long as we have records on it. Even Jefferson remarked on it, though he thought they could be taught morality some day. Is your working theory that Black British and African American culture are the same? Is it that African American culture has always been awful, and therefore conducive to this sort of behavior? Do you have more than excuses?
Low functioning MAOA makes more sense. We're still only talking about ~5% of the US black population, but it's plenty to cause issues.
Edit: Forgot to address the crime rate. https://archive.is/TusdI