Tomorrow marks the 100-year anniversary of The Tulsa Race Massacre

[Mac-7]

The astonishing revelation that students of the Tulsa school system ...be they now in their 50's or 30's or today's teenagers.....had never been taught about that day. Reported interviews stated that most had never ever heard of it. And they lived in Tulsa!!
That absolutely amazes me.

Thats typical of our modern liberal public education system

Ask recent graduates practically any question about history and it soon becomes obvious they dont know much

 

[Votto]

The recent obsession of the Tulsa Massacre by the media is an indication of something, in fact, it is an indication of many, many things. Why, after 100 years, is the media finally getting round to talking about it? But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?

To break this down, we must first understand why they are telling us about this now. One reason is that the event happened around Memorial day in 1921, and it is about that time once again. But more to the point, the event has been hyperinflated recently because the press has an agenda, and that agenda is to make Americans think ill of themselves having come from such a racist country. It is an attempt to transform America into a nation that hates itself, and feels as though they must destroy themselves and start over, or forever be guilty and culpable of all of the sins done to Black people. Then political figures will enter the scene to radically transform everything to "atone" for the sins of the past. At least, that is the message they are selling.

But why tell us now and not back then? Was the media afraid to tell the US public because they thought that they would disapprove? This would indicate that the general public was not as racist as the media would have us believe and government that covered up the event. Of course, you could argue that the media was afraid of arousing black anger and violence by revealing the incident, but then, how is that any different now? If so, why are they not afraid to reveal this now because it could triggo\er the same reaction today?

Naturally, the media had no intention of this story being used to focus on the themselves. For example, just how much control over the press does the government have? Or just how more sinister and racist has the media of the past been compared to the average public to be complicit in this evil act? You can't get me to believe that the media and government leaders were not afraid of the white condemnation about the event, especially since the nation had fought a bloody Civil war over slavery some 100 years prior to the massacre as white fought against white to free Black slaves.

The media would have you believe that they are no longer the same, they are no longer the racist thugs they once used to be, but the average white person is. But this event would say otherwise. This event shows us just how dark and sinister the media has been, and probably still is. If not, what changed them that did not change the society at large like they would have us all believe?

More than ever, I believe the media to be the enemy of the people.

The fake news media cause the riot in the first place.

A black guy sexually assaulted an elevator operator and was arrested. The black owned newspapers then spread a rumor that the townsfolk were going to break into the jail and lynch him. So a bunch of blacks gathered around the jail and started shooting at white people. And whites shot back.

Next thing you know it's a race riot. All caused by the fake news media spreading rumors to sell newspapers.

Good point. So all the killing was caused by the media by in large

So the media should pay the reparations. Just give CNN a call, I'm sure they would be more than grateful to virtue signal caring.

It's simply what they do, especially being run by white folk.

 

[Votto]

But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?

It's interesting that you're trying to frame this as a condemnation of the media's reporting or lack thereof instead of the people who actually committed the acts.

From a legal perspective, it could have been that the people who did this were being protected and now perhaps they are all dead. I still don't understand how the insurance companies got away with denying every single claim that was filed for losses AND no one was held accountable but that too is part of why was there no one screaming from the rooftops about the injustices that went on in Tulsa during the massacre.

Someone needs to pay for what happened and if they people who actually committed the offenses were allowed to escape punishment then next in line are their collaborators, right on down the line.

Why is it interesting to frame it a problem with the media?

As already stated, the whole event was sparked by the media's fake news. Additionally, it was later covered up by them as well.

Really, all we have to fight fascism is the media, how else will people know what the hell is going on to make any informed decisions.

Obviously, we can't.

As far as I'm concerned, the media should be paying us all reparations, especially for the media suggesting innocent white folk should pay for something they were responsible for hiding.

 

[Votto]

The recent obsession of the Tulsa Massacre by the media is an indication of something, in fact, it is an indication of many, many things. Why, after 100 years, is the media finally getting round to talking about it? But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?

To break this down, we must first understand why they are telling us about this now. One reason is that the event happened around Memorial day in 1921, and it is about that time once again. But more to the point, the event has been hyperinflated recently because the press has an agenda, and that agenda is to make Americans think ill of themselves having come from such a racist country. It is an attempt to transform America into a nation that hates itself, and feels as though they must destroy themselves and start over, or forever be guilty and culpable of all of the sins done to Black people. Then political figures will enter the scene to radically transform everything to "atone" for the sins of the past. At least, that is the message they are selling.

But why tell us now and not back then? Was the media afraid to tell the US public because they thought that they would disapprove? This would indicate that the general public was not as racist as the media would have us believe and government that covered up the event. Of course, you could argue that the media was afraid of arousing black anger and violence by revealing the incident, but then, how is that any different now? If so, why are they not afraid to reveal this now because it could triggo\er the same reaction today?

Naturally, the media had no intention of this story being used to focus on the themselves. For example, just how much control over the press does the government have? Or just how more sinister and racist has the media of the past been compared to the average public to be complicit in this evil act? You can't get me to believe that the media and government leaders were not afraid of the white condemnation about the event, especially since the nation had fought a bloody Civil war over slavery some 100 years prior to the massacre as white fought against white to free Black slaves.

The media would have you believe that they are no longer the same, they are no longer the racist thugs they once used to be, but the average white person is. But this event would say otherwise. This event shows us just how dark and sinister the media has been, and probably still is. If not, what changed them that did not change the society at large like they would have us all believe?

More than ever, I believe the media to be the enemy of the people.

I suggest you read the thread on the topic of the Tulsa incident.....obviously you do not know the facts of the case.....Irregardess you do come to a good and accurate conclusion....the mainstream media is the enemy of the people....no doubt about that whatsoever

Tomorrow marks the 100-year anniversary of The Tulsa Race Massacre

I don't accept blacks who are for gun control. If Blacks were armed during the Tulsa riots, they could have blasted back at those whites who were shooting at them. I tell all you black people in America, arm yourselves to the hilt.!!

www.usmessageboard.com

Hence the problem with the media once again.

It never ends with them.

If the media was doing their job, we would have a government we could be proud of and the nation would not be as divided as it is now. The media now is trying to create another race war, I suppose preferably with Black folk doing all the killing this time. Perhaps they will cover for them like they did for the murderers of the past. They have already incorrectly assumed the guilt of innocent white folk all across the country.

 

[rightwinger]

That coward Orangecat would have been involved in the massacre, w/a white hood on no doubt.

Another triggered asshole chimes in^^^
Stop race-appropriating to make blacks look like imbeciles, whitey. You're not fooling anyone.

I have not noticed you saying anything con-demning the Tulsa Massacre. You're not fooling anyone.

Just like everything with Conservatives

Move along, let’s just forget it

~~~~~~

Tulsa Race Massacre - Facts, Photos, Coverup | HISTORY

During the Tulsa Race Massacre, a white mob attacked residents, homes and businesses in the predominantly Black Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma over 18 hours on May 31-June 1, 1921. The event remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history.

www.history.com

**********​

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan”

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan” “The worst enemy that the Negro have is thi…

citizenwells.com

**********​

The Deadliest Massacre in Reconstruction-Era Louisiana Happened 150 Years Ago

In September 1868, Southern white Democrats hunted down around 200 African-Americans in an effort to suppress voter turnout

www.smithsonianmag.com

**********​

There is no doubt that the racist Executive Orders and actions of President Woodrow Wilson Democrat administration's positive nod and the Democrat major in Congress to revive the Ku Klux Klan led to the Greenwood Massacre in Tulsa Oklahoma on May 31, 1921.
Needless to say that the complicit media had a big hand in burying the truth.

The media should have led nationwide outrage. This is not America

Instead, they blamed the blacks

 

[Weatherman2020]

The recent obsession of the Tulsa Massacre by the media is an indication of something, in fact, it is an indication of many, many things. Why, after 100 years, is the media finally getting round to talking about it? But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?

To break this down, we must first understand why they are telling us about this now. One reason is that the event happened around Memorial day in 1921, and it is about that time once again. But more to the point, the event has been hyperinflated recently because the press has an agenda, and that agenda is to make Americans think ill of themselves having come from such a racist country. It is an attempt to transform America into a nation that hates itself, and feels as though they must destroy themselves and start over, or forever be guilty and culpable of all of the sins done to Black people. Then political figures will enter the scene to radically transform everything to "atone" for the sins of the past. At least, that is the message they are selling.

But why tell us now and not back then? Was the media afraid to tell the US public because they thought that they would disapprove? This would indicate that the general public was not as racist as the media would have us believe and government that covered up the event. Of course, you could argue that the media was afraid of arousing black anger and violence by revealing the incident, but then, how is that any different now? If so, why are they not afraid to reveal this now because it could triggo\er the same reaction today?

Naturally, the media had no intention of this story being used to focus on the themselves. For example, just how much control over the press does the government have? Or just how more sinister and racist has the media of the past been compared to the average public to be complicit in this evil act? You can't get me to believe that the media and government leaders were not afraid of the white condemnation about the event, especially since the nation had fought a bloody Civil war over slavery some 100 years prior to the massacre as white fought against white to free Black slaves.

The media would have you believe that they are no longer the same, they are no longer the racist thugs they once used to be, but the average white person is. But this event would say otherwise. This event shows us just how dark and sinister the media has been, and probably still is. If not, what changed them that did not change the society at large like they would have us all believe?

More than ever, I believe the media to be the enemy of the people.

Because we all know an event where everyone involved is now dead has everything to do with reality today.

 

[Polishprince]

That coward Orangecat would have been involved in the massacre, w/a white hood on no doubt.

Another triggered asshole chimes in^^^
Stop race-appropriating to make blacks look like imbeciles, whitey. You're not fooling anyone.

I have not noticed you saying anything con-demning the Tulsa Massacre. You're not fooling anyone.

Just like everything with Conservatives

Move along, let’s just forget it

~~~~~~

Tulsa Race Massacre - Facts, Photos, Coverup | HISTORY

During the Tulsa Race Massacre, a white mob attacked residents, homes and businesses in the predominantly Black Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma over 18 hours on May 31-June 1, 1921. The event remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history.

www.history.com

**********​

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan”

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan” “The worst enemy that the Negro have is thi…

citizenwells.com

**********​

The Deadliest Massacre in Reconstruction-Era Louisiana Happened 150 Years Ago

In September 1868, Southern white Democrats hunted down around 200 African-Americans in an effort to suppress voter turnout

www.smithsonianmag.com

**********​

There is no doubt that the racist Executive Orders and actions of President Woodrow Wilson Democrat administration's positive nod and the Democrat major in Congress to revive the Ku Klux Klan led to the Greenwood Massacre in Tulsa Oklahoma on May 31, 1921.
Needless to say that the complicit media had a big hand in burying the truth.

The media should have led nationwide outrage. This is not America

Instead, they blamed the blacks

The leftist media was actually there, you and the other revisionists hadn't been born yet.

Why is your word more accurate than the journalists of the press who were working the Tulsa beat in 1921 and knew the principals in the event?

 

[rightwinger]

That coward Orangecat would have been involved in the massacre, w/a white hood on no doubt.

Another triggered asshole chimes in^^^
Stop race-appropriating to make blacks look like imbeciles, whitey. You're not fooling anyone.

I have not noticed you saying anything con-demning the Tulsa Massacre. You're not fooling anyone.

Just like everything with Conservatives

Move along, let’s just forget it

~~~~~~

Tulsa Race Massacre - Facts, Photos, Coverup | HISTORY

During the Tulsa Race Massacre, a white mob attacked residents, homes and businesses in the predominantly Black Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma over 18 hours on May 31-June 1, 1921. The event remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history.

www.history.com

**********​

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan”

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan” “The worst enemy that the Negro have is thi…

citizenwells.com

**********​

The Deadliest Massacre in Reconstruction-Era Louisiana Happened 150 Years Ago

In September 1868, Southern white Democrats hunted down around 200 African-Americans in an effort to suppress voter turnout

www.smithsonianmag.com

**********​

There is no doubt that the racist Executive Orders and actions of President Woodrow Wilson Democrat administration's positive nod and the Democrat major in Congress to revive the Ku Klux Klan led to the Greenwood Massacre in Tulsa Oklahoma on May 31, 1921.
Needless to say that the complicit media had a big hand in burying the truth.

The media should have led nationwide outrage. This is not America

Instead, they blamed the blacks

The leftist media was actually there, you and the other revisionists hadn't been born yet.

Why is your word more accurate than the journalists of the press who were working the Tulsa beat in 1921 and knew the principals in the event?

History has proven otherwise

 

[Polishprince]

That coward Orangecat would have been involved in the massacre, w/a white hood on no doubt.

Another triggered asshole chimes in^^^
Stop race-appropriating to make blacks look like imbeciles, whitey. You're not fooling anyone.

I have not noticed you saying anything con-demning the Tulsa Massacre. You're not fooling anyone.

Just like everything with Conservatives

Move along, let’s just forget it

~~~~~~

Tulsa Race Massacre - Facts, Photos, Coverup | HISTORY

During the Tulsa Race Massacre, a white mob attacked residents, homes and businesses in the predominantly Black Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma over 18 hours on May 31-June 1, 1921. The event remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history.

www.history.com

**********​

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan”

Tulsa Oklahoma race riot massacre of 1921, Democrat and KKK stronghold, “Social tensions were exacerbated by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan” “The worst enemy that the Negro have is thi…

citizenwells.com

**********​

The Deadliest Massacre in Reconstruction-Era Louisiana Happened 150 Years Ago

In September 1868, Southern white Democrats hunted down around 200 African-Americans in an effort to suppress voter turnout

www.smithsonianmag.com

**********​

There is no doubt that the racist Executive Orders and actions of President Woodrow Wilson Democrat administration's positive nod and the Democrat major in Congress to revive the Ku Klux Klan led to the Greenwood Massacre in Tulsa Oklahoma on May 31, 1921.
Needless to say that the complicit media had a big hand in burying the truth.

The media should have led nationwide outrage. This is not America

Instead, they blamed the blacks

The leftist media was actually there, you and the other revisionists hadn't been born yet.

Why is your word more accurate than the journalists of the press who were working the Tulsa beat in 1921 and knew the principals in the event?

History has proven otherwise

Historical revisionists have certainly worked overtime on retelling the story of the Tulsa riot to meet their narrative in recent years.

But they haven't "proven" a dam thing, just have been the loudest voice in the room after the principals have all passed on.

Fair minded people , OTOH, tend not to give a shit about Tulsa as the event happened a lot time ago and has no relevance to 2021 America so haven't really looked into it.

 

[Votto]

The recent obsession of the Tulsa Massacre by the media is an indication of something, in fact, it is an indication of many, many things. Why, after 100 years, is the media finally getting round to talking about it? But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?

To break this down, we must first understand why they are telling us about this now. One reason is that the event happened around Memorial day in 1921, and it is about that time once again. But more to the point, the event has been hyperinflated recently because the press has an agenda, and that agenda is to make Americans think ill of themselves having come from such a racist country. It is an attempt to transform America into a nation that hates itself, and feels as though they must destroy themselves and start over, or forever be guilty and culpable of all of the sins done to Black people. Then political figures will enter the scene to radically transform everything to "atone" for the sins of the past. At least, that is the message they are selling.

But why tell us now and not back then? Was the media afraid to tell the US public because they thought that they would disapprove? This would indicate that the general public was not as racist as the media would have us believe and government that covered up the event. Of course, you could argue that the media was afraid of arousing black anger and violence by revealing the incident, but then, how is that any different now? If so, why are they not afraid to reveal this now because it could triggo\er the same reaction today?

Naturally, the media had no intention of this story being used to focus on the themselves. For example, just how much control over the press does the government have? Or just how more sinister and racist has the media of the past been compared to the average public to be complicit in this evil act? You can't get me to believe that the media and government leaders were not afraid of the white condemnation about the event, especially since the nation had fought a bloody Civil war over slavery some 100 years prior to the massacre as white fought against white to free Black slaves.

The media would have you believe that they are no longer the same, they are no longer the racist thugs they once used to be, but the average white person is. But this event would say otherwise. This event shows us just how dark and sinister the media has been, and probably still is. If not, what changed them that did not change the society at large like they would have us all believe?

More than ever, I believe the media to be the enemy of the people.

Because we all know an event where everyone involved is now dead has everything to do with reality today.

Here is something that we DO know. The only reason people embraced slavery to begin with is because they were brainwashed by the media to do so

BBC - History - British History in depth: The First Black Britons

Sukhdev Sandhu reveals the origins of Britain's black history.

www.bbc.co.uk

Blacks were routinely portrayed by the media as inferior or dysfunctional so that people would feel better about using them as slaves

Images of black people​

Dr Johnson - forbade his black servant to buy food for his cat ©Black men and women found life in the UK infinitely preferable to the lives of punishing work they would have faced in the West Indies, but, though they were comparatively well treated, they were not treated as fully human.

Oil paintings of aristocratic families from this period make the point clearly. Artists routinely positioned black people on the edges or at the rear of their canvasses, from where they gaze wonderingly at their masters and mistresses. In order to reveal a 'hierarchy of power relationships', they were often placed next to dogs and other domestic animals, with whom they shared, according to the art critic and novelist David Dabydeen, 'more or less the same status'. Their humanity effaced, they exist in these pictures as solitary mutes, aesthetic foils to their owners' economic fortunes.

Owners often took it upon themselves to educate their 'possessions', and gave them lessons in accomplishments such as prosody, drawing and musical composition

Until the abolitionist movement of the 1770s and 1780s began to challenge existing stereotypes about the moral and intellectual capacity of black people, it was not unusual for them to be portrayed as simians or as occupying the bottom rung of the great chain of being. They were also said to lack reason.

As late as 1810 the Encyclopaedia Britannica described 'the Negro' thus: 'Vices the most notorious seem to be the portion of this unhappy race... they are strangers to every sentiment of compassion, and are an awful example of the corruption of man left to himself.'

Nonetheless, more humane relationships between black servants and the nobility were not unknown. Owners often took it upon themselves to educate their 'possessions', and gave them lessons in accomplishments such as prosody, drawing and musical composition.

Dr Johnson famously left his Jamaica-born employee Francis Barber a £70 annuity, and refused to let him go and buy food for his cat, as he felt that 'it was not good to employ human beings in the service of animals'. Barber's last descendant still lives in the Lichfield area; he's white, his children are all daughters, and the name will die out with this generation.

So as we can see, the media was guiding the Sheeple to do their bidding by convincing them that Blacks were inferior.

But the media also had the help of science.

Here is Darwin trying to convince us that Blacks have a greater sense of smell than white folk, and it's all because animals have a higher sense of smell than humans and that Blacks are closer to being animals than white folk

“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”

So I will have to amend my statement that only the media should pay reparations, I think scientists should as well.

As for the average white person, they were all just sheeple following their masters. In reality, the Civil war saw white folk kill each other to the tune of a million dead to rectify the injustice created by government, science, and the media. They have already paid for their sins of the past in spades. However, those in the media were cashing in on the war stories as they sold newspapers about the Civil war. They paid no price. In fact, I think white folk should get reparations as well for being told to jump off the cliff and kill each other in what ended up being America's bloodiest war.

But the problem is, the media holds the narrative which means these kinds of views will never be sold to the sheeple, thus never embraced. And if I tried to use their social media platforms to sell it, Big Tech would just censor me. Thus I can only conclude we are all still their slaves. Just look at this woman who is convinced by the media that her white skin color is evil, so she must quit her teaching career and bugger off in shame. The media that once convinced white folk that blacks were glorified apes to be used as slaves and kill them with impunity, are now convincing white folk to destroy themselves.

'Anti-racist' white teacher stopped teaching Spanish to students because she is 'dismantling white supremacy in society' | Blaze Media

A white teacher proclaimed that she is "dismantling white supremacy in society" by not teaching Spanish to her students. The anti-racist teacher proclaimed that she is holding herself accountable for her skin color by grappling with her own "internalized white supremacy."Jessica Bridges is a...

www.theblaze.com

 

[TheParser]

The recent obsession of the Tulsa Massacre by the media is an indication of something, in fact, it is an indication of many, many things. Why, after 100 years, is the media finally getting round to talking about it? But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?

To break this down, we must first understand why they are telling us about this now. One reason is that the event happened around Memorial day in 1921, and it is about that time once again. But more to the point, the event has been hyperinflated recently because the press has an agenda, and that agenda is to make Americans think ill of themselves having come from such a racist country. It is an attempt to transform America into a nation that hates itself, and feels as though they must destroy themselves and start over, or forever be guilty and culpable of all of the sins done to Black people. Then political figures will enter the scene to radically transform everything to "atone" for the sins of the past. At least, that is the message they are selling.

But why tell us now and not back then? Was the media afraid to tell the US public because they thought that they would disapprove? This would indicate that the general public was not as racist as the media would have us believe and government that covered up the event. Of course, you could argue that the media was afraid of arousing black anger and violence by revealing the incident, but then, how is that any different now? If so, why are they not afraid to reveal this now because it could triggo\er the same reaction today?

Naturally, the media had no intention of this story being used to focus on the themselves. For example, just how much control over the press does the government have? Or just how more sinister and racist has the media of the past been compared to the average public to be complicit in this evil act? You can't get me to believe that the media and government leaders were not afraid of the white condemnation about the event, especially since the nation had fought a bloody Civil war over slavery some 100 years prior to the massacre as white fought against white to free Black slaves.

The media would have you believe that they are no longer the same, they are no longer the racist thugs they once used to be, but the average white person is. But this event would say otherwise. This event shows us just how dark and sinister the media has been, and probably still is. If not, what changed them that did not change the society at large like they would have us all believe?

More than ever, I believe the media to be the enemy of the people.

I know hardly anything about the Tulsa incident.

I do now remember reading years ago that it started after a Caucasian lady accused an African American gentleman of improper behavior inside an elevator.

I do not know whether the American media completely ignored the destruction of that neighborhood.

IF it did, then the media were wrong.

It was news.

But we have to remember that it was in 1921.

At that time, Americans had a different attitude toward non-Caucasians.

So I could understand why the media (reportedly) decided not to stir up things by reporting it.

Today, of course, it's the total reverse.

If a Caucasian even looks at an African American in an unfriendly manner, it will be front page news.

 

[OKTexas]

There was not an entire town wiped off the face of the earth, it was a neighborhood, what they called colored town back then. There is no justification for what happened but at least get your facts straight.

.

It was 35 blocks including a hospital, movie theatre, doctor and attorney offices, etc.

There was not an entire town wiped off the face of the earth, it was a neighborhood, what they called colored town back then. There is no justification for what happened but at least get your facts straight.

.

It was 35 blocks including a hospital, movie theatre, doctor and attorney offices, etc.

I have never seen you be right about anything from the Trayvon Martin case forwards.....you just 'parrot like' repeat the propaganda......anyhow no hospital was destroyed.

What was destroyed was a small part of the town.....referred to back then as Niggah Town.

Some in a jocular sarcastic fashion called it the Black Wall Street.

Actually it was a very prosperous part of the city.

.

Prosperous is a very relative term....what was prosperous in greenwood, Ok. may not be the same as what 'prosperous' means to others.

Now I am not denying they were prosperous or even perhaps wealthy but what we have seen with the media is to attempt to use that as an excuse for what happened aka the whites were jealous so they decided to burn it down....no evidence for that.

What there is evidence for that incited the riot was a black teen sexually assaulting a white girl....which simply was not tolerated back then....many lynchings of black rapists.

Add to that all the fake news from the local paper....aka armed blacks were on the way from other places etc. not even to mention the official reason given for the riot after the government investigation....'because a armed group of black men went down to the jail and confronted a white group.'..shots were fired....people black and white were killed...then the blacks retreated and the whites followed them and began to burn them out after blacks fired at the whites whilst inside their houses.

Yeah, heaven forbid they try to protect their homes and families.

.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Tulsa massacre documentaries offer deep dive into tragedy

LeBron James, Russell Westbrook and a slew of networks are among those releasing documentaries based on the tragic backstory of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

abcnews.go.com

There are plans afoot to cover this story in some depth. The story seems to have had little coverage until recently
and that seems to be a huge omission.

Of course if these things are not taught in schools there is little chance that folk will know about them and the lessons will not be learned.

It really does vindicate the efforts of the people behind the 1619 Project. These matters should not be brushed under the carpet. Something we can all agree on.

 

[Polishprince]

Tulsa massacre documentaries offer deep dive into tragedy

LeBron James, Russell Westbrook and a slew of networks are among those releasing documentaries based on the tragic backstory of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

abcnews.go.com

There are plans afoot to cover this story in some depth. The story seems to have had little coverage until recently
and that seems to be a huge omission.

Of course if these things are not taught in schools there is little chance that folk will know about them and the lessons will not be learned.

It really does vindicate the efforts of the people behind the 1619 Project. These matters should not be brushed under the carpet. Something we can all agree on.

The Tulsa riot wasn't a big event, except for those souls who lived in Tulsa in 1921. There were fires and handful of people were killed.

Its only being made a big deal now because its part of the liberal narrative to trash America and America's Deplorables.

of course, everyone who was there in 1921 is long dead and can't defend themselves so its easy for the libs to bring it up now.

Talking about it 50 or more years ago when the people were still alive would have been too fair.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Tulsa massacre documentaries offer deep dive into tragedy

LeBron James, Russell Westbrook and a slew of networks are among those releasing documentaries based on the tragic backstory of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

abcnews.go.com

There are plans afoot to cover this story in some depth. The story seems to have had little coverage until recently
and that seems to be a huge omission.

Of course if these things are not taught in schools there is little chance that folk will know about them and the lessons will not be learned.

It really does vindicate the efforts of the people behind the 1619 Project. These matters should not be brushed under the carpet. Something we can all agree on.

The Tulsa riot wasn't a big event, except for those souls who lived in Tulsa in 1921. There were fires and handful of people were killed.

Its only being made a big deal now because its part of the liberal narrative to trash America and America's Deplorables.

of course, everyone who was there in 1921 is long dead and can't defend themselves so its easy for the libs to bring it up now.

Talking about it 50 or more years ago when the people were still alive would have been too fair.

300 dead and a 1000 homes burned down. Its hardly a few is it ?

 

[Polishprince]

Tulsa massacre documentaries offer deep dive into tragedy

LeBron James, Russell Westbrook and a slew of networks are among those releasing documentaries based on the tragic backstory of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

abcnews.go.com

There are plans afoot to cover this story in some depth. The story seems to have had little coverage until recently
and that seems to be a huge omission.

Of course if these things are not taught in schools there is little chance that folk will know about them and the lessons will not be learned.

It really does vindicate the efforts of the people behind the 1619 Project. These matters should not be brushed under the carpet. Something we can all agree on.

The Tulsa riot wasn't a big event, except for those souls who lived in Tulsa in 1921. There were fires and handful of people were killed.

Its only being made a big deal now because its part of the liberal narrative to trash America and America's Deplorables.

of course, everyone who was there in 1921 is long dead and can't defend themselves so its easy for the libs to bring it up now.

Talking about it 50 or more years ago when the people were still alive would have been too fair.

300 dead and a 1000 homes burned down. Its hardly a few is it ?

More like 15 dead.

The number reported by the libs in the current age are a lot greater than contemporary reports.

A significant number I guess, but not an important episode for the country.

Youngstown Vindicator - Google News Archive Search

news.google.com

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Tulsa massacre documentaries offer deep dive into tragedy

LeBron James, Russell Westbrook and a slew of networks are among those releasing documentaries based on the tragic backstory of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

abcnews.go.com

There are plans afoot to cover this story in some depth. The story seems to have had little coverage until recently
and that seems to be a huge omission.

Of course if these things are not taught in schools there is little chance that folk will know about them and the lessons will not be learned.

It really does vindicate the efforts of the people behind the 1619 Project. These matters should not be brushed under the carpet. Something we can all agree on.

The Tulsa riot wasn't a big event, except for those souls who lived in Tulsa in 1921. There were fires and handful of people were killed.

Its only being made a big deal now because its part of the liberal narrative to trash America and America's Deplorables.

of course, everyone who was there in 1921 is long dead and can't defend themselves so its easy for the libs to bring it up now.

Talking about it 50 or more years ago when the people were still alive would have been too fair.

300 dead and a 1000 homes burned down. Its hardly a few is it ?

More like 15 dead.

The number reported by the libs in the current age are a lot greater than contemporary reports.

A significant number I guess, but not an important episode for the country.

Youngstown Vindicator - Google News Archive Search

news.google.com

That paper is dated the day of the massacre. Do you think the true figure would be apparent at that stage ? I mean seriously............................

 

[bodecea]

The recent obsession of the Tulsa Massacre by the media is an indication of something, in fact, it is an indication of many, many things. Why, after 100 years, is the media finally getting round to talking about it? But a more disturbing question is, why were they afraid to tell the citizens of the US about it when it happened as they buried the story and refused to tell America that an entire town had been murdered and wiped off the face of the earth?

To break this down, we must first understand why they are telling us about this now. One reason is that the event happened around Memorial day in 1921, and it is about that time once again. But more to the point, the event has been hyperinflated recently because the press has an agenda, and that agenda is to make Americans think ill of themselves having come from such a racist country. It is an attempt to transform America into a nation that hates itself, and feels as though they must destroy themselves and start over, or forever be guilty and culpable of all of the sins done to Black people. Then political figures will enter the scene to radically transform everything to "atone" for the sins of the past. At least, that is the message they are selling.

But why tell us now and not back then? Was the media afraid to tell the US public because they thought that they would disapprove? This would indicate that the general public was not as racist as the media would have us believe and government that covered up the event. Of course, you could argue that the media was afraid of arousing black anger and violence by revealing the incident, but then, how is that any different now? If so, why are they not afraid to reveal this now because it could triggo\er the same reaction today?

Naturally, the media had no intention of this story being used to focus on the themselves. For example, just how much control over the press does the government have? Or just how more sinister and racist has the media of the past been compared to the average public to be complicit in this evil act? You can't get me to believe that the media and government leaders were not afraid of the white condemnation about the event, especially since the nation had fought a bloody Civil war over slavery some 100 years prior to the massacre as white fought against white to free Black slaves.

The media would have you believe that they are no longer the same, they are no longer the racist thugs they once used to be, but the average white person is. But this event would say otherwise. This event shows us just how dark and sinister the media has been, and probably still is. If not, what changed them that did not change the society at large like they would have us all believe?

More than ever, I believe the media to be the enemy of the people.

Because we all know an event where everyone involved is now dead has everything to do with reality today.

Not everyone is dead.....I'm sure that's too bad for those who are trying to minimize this atrocity for....................reasons.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

There was not an entire town wiped off the face of the earth, it was a neighborhood, what they called colored town back then. There is no justification for what happened but at least get your facts straight.

.

It was 35 blocks including a hospital, movie theatre, doctor and attorney offices, etc.

There was not an entire town wiped off the face of the earth, it was a neighborhood, what they called colored town back then. There is no justification for what happened but at least get your facts straight.

.

It was 35 blocks including a hospital, movie theatre, doctor and attorney offices, etc.

I have never seen you be right about anything from the Trayvon Martin case forwards.....you just 'parrot like' repeat the propaganda......anyhow no hospital was destroyed.

What was destroyed was a small part of the town.....referred to back then as Niggah Town.

Some in a jocular sarcastic fashion called it the Black Wall Street.

Actually it was a very prosperous part of the city.

.

Prosperous is a very relative term....what was prosperous in greenwood, Ok. may not be the same as what 'prosperous' means to others.

Now I am not denying they were prosperous or even perhaps wealthy but what we have seen with the media is to attempt to use that as an excuse for what happened aka the whites were jealous so they decided to burn it down....no evidence for that.

What there is evidence for that incited the riot was a black teen sexually assaulting a white girl....which simply was not tolerated back then....many lynchings of black rapists.

Add to that all the fake news from the local paper....aka armed blacks were on the way from other places etc. not even to mention the official reason given for the riot after the government investigation....'because a armed group of black men went down to the jail and confronted a white group.'..shots were fired....people black and white were killed...then the blacks retreated and the whites followed them and began to burn them out after blacks fired at the whites whilst inside their houses.

Yeah, heaven forbid they try to protect their homes and families.

.

If the blacks had not armed themselves and started shooting people this event would not have happened.

The blacks in that community due to their wealth they inherited from their former Indian masters had gotten uppity and thought because they had weapons they could do as they pleased.

 

[Polishprince]

Tulsa massacre documentaries offer deep dive into tragedy

LeBron James, Russell Westbrook and a slew of networks are among those releasing documentaries based on the tragic backstory of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

abcnews.go.com

There are plans afoot to cover this story in some depth. The story seems to have had little coverage until recently
and that seems to be a huge omission.

Of course if these things are not taught in schools there is little chance that folk will know about them and the lessons will not be learned.

It really does vindicate the efforts of the people behind the 1619 Project. These matters should not be brushed under the carpet. Something we can all agree on.

The Tulsa riot wasn't a big event, except for those souls who lived in Tulsa in 1921. There were fires and handful of people were killed.

Its only being made a big deal now because its part of the liberal narrative to trash America and America's Deplorables.

of course, everyone who was there in 1921 is long dead and can't defend themselves so its easy for the libs to bring it up now.

Talking about it 50 or more years ago when the people were still alive would have been too fair.

300 dead and a 1000 homes burned down. Its hardly a few is it ?

More like 15 dead.

The number reported by the libs in the current age are a lot greater than contemporary reports.

A significant number I guess, but not an important episode for the country.

Youngstown Vindicator - Google News Archive Search

news.google.com

That paper is dated the day of the massacre. Do you think the true figure would be apparent at that stage ? I mean seriously............................

It would be a lot more apparent at that stage, instead of now, after a century of libs politicizing the riot.