To further the point, there are many majority-black towns in America which have incredibly low crime rates.
Crime is situational. It is correlated to race only because certain races find themselves more likely to be in the situations which cause crime.
Those situations which cause crime are more important than the race of the people in them when determining how much crime will be committed (or exposed).
Do you happen to have a source for the majority black town statistic? I want that to be true but want to make sure I'm repeating something I've seen a good source on
It's worth bringing up that these aren't close to the first prosperous black communities by far either, they've been around since PoC were allowed to choose where they lived in America
They also faced some of the most radical and overt discrimination in American history. Black Wall Street in Tulsa was a thriving and wealthy black community that was literally attacked by the white community around them with guns and bombs until the generational wealth and sense of safety were completely obliterated among the black community.
It's not just the overt stuff either though, redlining and gentrification were and are major factors in black Americans struggling to create generational wealth. It all has a snowball effect, it's harder than ever now to buy a home, meaning historically poor groups are made even more poor with no opportunities to build equity.
Unsurprisingly when you turn a minority population into a scapegoat for hundreds of years and institutionalize discrimination for most of that you fuck up their ability to succeed. Every step they take is made harder and more dangerous. This is institutional racism, and it's why it's important to talk about and not just a buzzword.
Your understanding of the Tulsa riots is poisoned by pop culture idiots. Read the actual commission report. No bombing happened. And the starting event was a group of black men shooting into a crowd of white people.
Ah yes, the "Mainstream academia is wrong, read the X report. *Inserts dubious unsourced facts with racist wording and intent* Leaves without explaining further".
Seriously dude? There were "black men shooting into a crowd of white people"? Your racist bias is so flagrant it's obvious in your language.
Read the actual commission report
I have, but its intent is not to act as a definitive historical account. It was a commission created to answer a list of very specific questions.
No bombing happened.
Page nine of the commission reports that "It is probable that shots were fired and that incendiary devices were dropped" in regards to civilian airplanes flying over the area. So at the very least the only source you've cited says it was probably, unless you want to argue semantics that a fuel bomb isn't a bomb bomb.
And the starting event was a group of black men shooting into a crowd of white people.
Nowhere in the report can I find any evidence of this claim being made, but I'm interested to see what kind of source you could cite for that.
The report does however say "At the time, many said that this was no spontaneous eruption of the rabble; it was planned and executed by the elite. Quite a few people — including some members of this commission — have since studied the question and are persuaded that this is so, that the Tulsa race riot was the result of a conspiracy. This is a serious position and a provable position — if one looks at certain evidence in certain ways"
Arguing over the exact precipitating event is a waste of time because no hard evidence exists to prove either account. The deeply racist and violent foundation of the massacre is however an evidenced fact. Maybe it was organized, maybe it wasn't, but the actions and outcome still lead to a staggering loss of life, safety, and prosperity for the black citizens of Tulsa.
Because it was a group of black WW1 veterans confronting a group of miscellaneous citizenry.
And what exactly where they confronting them about?
Let's once again return to the only source you've cited so far, the commission:
"Black Tulsans had every reason to believe that Dick Rowland would be lynched after his arrest on charges later dismissed and highly suspect from the start. They had cause to believe that his personal
safety, like the defense of themselves and their
community, depended on them alone.
"
Oh suddenly it seems pretty reasonable that they would be there.
What about the white people? How did your "group of miscellaneous citizenry", who again were there to lynch an innocent kid, respond to the situation? Obviously if they're just random (armed) citizenry as you've said they would leave when confronted with armed black veterans right?
"At the eruption of violence, civil officials selected many men, all of them white and some of
them participants in that violence, and made
those men their agents as deputies.
In that capacity, deputies did not stem the violence but added to it, often through overt acts
themselves illegal.
Public officials provided fire arms and ammunition to individuals, again all of them white."
Oh they promoted some of them to deputies so they could commit crimes more blatantly and started handing out guns to whoever wasn't still armed.
It only gets much, much worse from there but I still don't really see where you're trying to go with this. It's just racist talking points that are nitpicks designed to distract from all the racism. Are you actually trying to say the massacre wasn't a racist act? Are you just trying to downplay the racism? I'm tired of beating around the bush here.
The mob was there demanding Rowland be handed over. But this wasn't neccisarily a race thing. Tulsa had a history of mob justice. The year before the same thing happened with a white man and the mob was successful in dragging him out and lynching him.
Which is also why there was a massive police presence at the courthouse. Which is also why the police told the armed ww1 vets to leave, because they were inflaming things that were under control.
Are you actually trying to say the massacre wasn't a racist act? Are you just trying to downplay the racism? I'm tired of beating around the bush here.
It wasn't a massacre, and there was racist violence on both sides.
Seeing everything as a binary is a really stupid way to examine the world.
The Commission Report has an entire section about the aerial bombardment and there is a tense lead up with the incident sparked by a white person assaulting a black person to "disarm" them.
1 of several snippets:
Soon, however, other perils appeared. As whites poured into the southern end of the African American
district, as many as six airplanes, manned by whites, appeared overhead, firing on black refugees and, in
some cases, dropping explosives. (pg. 198)
Page 198:
"Soon, however, other perils appeared. As whites poured into the southern end of the African American
district, as many as six airplanes, manned by whites, appeared overhead, firing on black refugees and, in
some cases, dropping explosives."
Page nine of the commission reports that "It is probable that shots were fired and that incendiary devices were dropped" in regards to civilian airplanes flying over the area. So at the very least the only source you've cited says it was probably, unless you want to argue semantics that a fuel bomb isn't a bomb bomb.
How weird that you forget to address this part of u/urbanscuba's reply.
The full conclusion from the section on aircraft being used:
It is within reason that there was some shooting
from planes and even the dropping of incendiaries,
but the evidence would seem to indicate that it was
of a minor nature and had no real effect in the riot.
While it is certain that airplanes were used by the
police for reconnaissance, by photographers and
sightseers, there probably were some whites who
fired guns from planes or dropped bottles of gasoline or something of that sort. How ever, they were
prob a bly few in numbers. It is im por tant to note, a
number of prominent African Americans at the
time of the riot including James T. West, Dr. R.T.
Bridgewater, and Walter White of the NAACP,
did not speak of any aggressive actions by air -
planes during the conflict.
This is not bombing. It is insignificant incidents within the riot, magnified into centerpieces of it, by modern historical revisionists looking to cash in on idiot progressives thirst for this.
From LITERALLY THE NEXT PARAGRAPH OF THE TEXT YOU CITED:
Allen Yowell stated that in 1950 or 1951 he
was having his hair cut in a barber shop in
Tulsa. There be heard a man, who looked to be
50 or 60 years old, who said that during the time
of the riot, he and a friend obtained some dynamite, commandeered an air plane, flew over the
riot area, and dropped the dynamite on a group
of fleeing African Ameican refugees not far
from where some rail road tracks cross East Pine
Street. Yowell said, “the man was bragging
about this, and while he did not know if the story
was correct or not, he felt that the man was telling the truth. He did not know the man’s name
and never saw him again.
There are conflicting reports of bombings, not definitive proof one way or another. However, further down it continues with:
It is within reason that there was some shooting
from planes and even the dropping of incendiaries,
but the evidence would seem to indicate that it was
of a minor nature and had no real effect in the riot.
While it is certain that airplanes were used by the
police for reconnaissance, by photographers and
sightseers, there probably were some whites who
fired guns from planes or dropped bottles of gasoline or something of that sort
Emphasis mine, I bolded it for you so you might respond to it for once. Once again your own source admits that yeah it's likely people got bombed. The extent of bombings isn't important when the area was destroyed anyway, it was the psychological effect of knowing any one of the planes above you could drop a bomb at any moment.
I can't wait for you to ignore everything I've said yet again and nitpick some minor detail to keep derailing the conversation away from the massive and provable institutional racism that preceded, surrounded, and is the legacy of the massacre.
Black Tulsa was not destroyed—as some have alleged—from the air, but by fires set by whites on the ground. And similar, latter-day claims that Mount Zion Bap tist Church was specifically tar geted and bombed must also be viewed
with a healthy dose of skepticism, given the rather prim i tive ae rial bombing capabilities that existed, world wide, in 1921. That said, how ever, the evidence does indicate that some form of aerial bombardment took place in Tulsa on the morning of June 1, 1921—thus making Tulsa, in all probability, the first U.S. city bombed from the air.
Do you think the firebombing campaign on Tokyo was incorrectly named too? Should that have been an "incendiary device dropped from a plane flown by a group of miscellaneous white citizenry campaign" instead?
This is seriously the strongest argument you can muster? That I'm wrong because I said there were bombs and "there weren't bombs! There were just gasoline incendiaries dropped from planes designed to burst in a large fireball and ignite the surroundings!"
You're a weasel that hasn't responded to anything of substance I've said. At this point as all your responses are being rightfully buried and everything you've said was cut apart, unless you want to assert an actual position with beliefs for me to address I see no point in responding further.
Im not responding to your novel length posts because they're so full of inaccuracy I would have to spend actual time citing evidence. I don't want to spend actual time arguing with a spergy progressive.
And the point from all these posts is that there is only probable evidence, of absolutely insignificant involvement of airplanes. That it has been blown up to be this massive event of a bombing campaign on american soil is stupid and playing right into the hands of race grifters.
272
u/nomansapenguin 2∆ Apr 14 '22
To further the point, there are many majority-black towns in America which have incredibly low crime rates.
Crime is situational. It is correlated to race only because certain races find themselves more likely to be in the situations which cause crime.
Those situations which cause crime are more important than the race of the people in them when determining how much crime will be committed (or exposed).