Tulsa isn’t the only race massacre you were never taught in school. Here are others.

[Trausti]

 

[untermensche]

Yeah, the racists that attacked and killed black people lied about it. Imagine that?

The black church they bombed was really an arsenal.

The same lie Israel tells every time it bombs civilians in Gaza to send a message to the rest.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If Rolfe P. Crum of Tulsa and the Bishop -- BISHOP!!! -- of Oklahoma say it's so, well, by golly, you know you can take it to the bank. What motive would a white bishop (I'm still trying to absorb the phrase "Bishop of Oklahoma" -- it's like "Archdeacon of Bessemer" or "Pope of Dumbfuck Egypt") have in distorting the truth about a race riot? In the words of an old blues song, "If Mr. Crum(p) don't like it, ain't gonna have it here."

 

[Gospel]

Europeans have a horrendous track record when it comes to putting truth on paper. Not saying that those two douche canoes were lying, I'm saying they were both full of shit.

 

[ZiprHead]

That sounds like it was written by Derec.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If Rolfe P. Crum of Tulsa and the Bishop -- BISHOP!!! -- of Oklahoma say it's so, well, by golly, you know you can take it to the bank. What motive would a white bishop (I'm still trying to absorb the phrase "Bishop of Oklahoma" -- it's like "Archdeacon of Bessemer" or "Pope of Dumbfuck Egypt") have in distorting the truth about a race riot? In the words of an old blues song, "If Mr. Crum(p) don't like it, ain't gonna have it here."

I'd point out 4 things...

(1) From the first letter, the author writes that some 200 fully armed black men show up to the place where the accused black person was being held. He claims he was in no danger at all and the men just randomly showed up. Then, he claims a random shot was fired and no one knows who did it. Look at his specific words, though: "...whether it was by a colored man or a white man is not yet known." Wait, what? He didn't mention any white men. In fact, he made huge efforts to be dismissive about the fears of the Black men but completely failed to mention that there had gathered a number of white men first there....including whether or not the white guys were armed. But if later on, he's saying that no one knows who fired the first shot, then you can infer that at least some of the white men who were there that the black men showed up to keep the prisoner safe from...had guns.

These sneaky tricks, lies by omission, denials of reality or whatever they are, are not something new for those times or for unjustified massacres in general. It is interesting and so I went back to look at the Tulsa Tribune of the next day, 01 Jun 1921. You know there are going to be biases in reporting from that time period and geography, too, in a White-owned newspaper, but on page 1, I see the following and I am adding sentence letters for reference:

{a.} Whatever ground it may have had, a story starts that a negro in the county jail was to be lynched. {b.} Out of curiosity a crowd collects. {c.} A small band of negroes brings firearms onto the scene. {d.} At first they were few. {e.} At the outset there was nothing to indicate that the whites had moved to battling protest. {f.} But when the first small band of negroes added to their armed forces the war began. ...​

The first thing here is that in {e} the author mentions "the whites" but just like the author of the letter, failed to mention them explicitly previously. Ergo, when he wrote in {b} that a crowd was collecting, he was actually talking about a white crowd. Also, like the letter, the author fails to mention that at least some of the whites has arms. So in {c} when the author says that arms are brought "onto the scene" by blacks, they fail to mention arms were already on the scene by the whites. The author also reverses the order of events and assigns an innocent motivation to the white crowd in {b} and {a}.

That is, the actual order of events was that the white crowd showed up first. The white crowd was angry. At least some of the white crowd was armed. It is likely that at least some of the whites wanted to lynch the black prisoner and this generated a rumor not only of a possible future lynching, but by the time it made the rounds, it became "he's probably already been lynched" to finally "he has been lynched."

Here is Wikipedia:

Rowland was arrested the following day, on May 31, 1921. With the headline "Nab Negro for Attacking Girl in Elevator" that day's issue of the Tulsa Tribune newspaper claimed Rowland had attacked Page and had torn her clothes.[5][6] A subsequent gathering of angry local whites outside the courthouse where Rowland was being held, and the spread of rumors that he had been lynched, alarmed the local black population, some of whom arrived at the courthouse armed. Shots were fired, and twelve people were killed; ten white and two black.[6]

In retaliation, a riot by whites was sparked that lasted 16 hours, during which time a white mob started fires and airplanes allegedly dropped firebombs. The destruction included 35 city blocks burned down and 1,256 residences in Tulsa's prosperous African American neighborhood of Greenwood destroyed, resulting in over 800 injuries and 37 confirmed dead – 25 black and 12 white.[7] Later accounts have suggested the number of deaths were under-recorded, and the actual death toll was at least 150.[6]

(2) There was indeed an organization of Black Americans called the African Blood Brotherhood, but it was more about self-defense than alleged mass conspiracy to kill Whitey. It should also be mentioned that the group was pretty radical but that is something that is being used to prejudice opinions against it.

(3) Conservolibertarians are often screaming about a right to bear arms and militias, but when it comes to Blacks, it's suddenly, "OMG, they had guns!!!111one" but interestingly found a store of them for self-defense in a basement without any persons using them.

(4) The claims of Rolfe Crum say that the Whites had to kill the Blacks to show the rest of the mass conspiracy that they should not rise up to kill Whitey, but then later on alleges that random thugs and bums burned down all those houses because, you know, it was just some random act disconnected from motivations to destroy Blacks that he was trying to justify.

 

[Gospel]

Murder, rape & enslave millions of people based on the color of their skin for 200 years, then be appalled/shocked when their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren have issues with your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren living off the blood of their relatives. Like, no shit man! Some black people just don't fucking like you and they have a pretty damn good reason. The opportunity to build a legacy in this country was forcefully denied at a time in America where many white people were building legacies that exist to this day. Every last one of them. You can't find an organization founded in America that is owned by a black person that pre-dates slavery. Duh. I bring that up because if you think about every industry black people were blocked out of (all of them) you'll find big insitutions that were established on the backs of the slaves standing today. Now here we are, with some white people shocked and appalled that some black people may not appreciate being reminded that white affirmative action was cool while any contempt for white people or attempt to even the playing field is unacceptable. All shouted from the comforts of a 200-year head start and institutionalized biases providing rose peddles at their feet while they're offended at the mere mention of this circus.

 

[Trausti]

If Rolfe P. Crum of Tulsa and the Bishop -- BISHOP!!! -- of Oklahoma say it's so, well, by golly, you know you can take it to the bank. What motive would a white bishop (I'm still trying to absorb the phrase "Bishop of Oklahoma" -- it's like "Archdeacon of Bessemer" or "Pope of Dumbfuck Egypt") have in distorting the truth about a race riot? In the words of an old blues song, "If Mr. Crum(p) don't like it, ain't gonna have it here."

I'd point out 4 things...

(1) From the first letter, the author writes that some 200 fully armed black men show up to the place where the accused black person was being held. He claims he was in no danger at all and the men just randomly showed up. Then, he claims a random shot was fired and no one knows who did it. Look at his specific words, though: "...whether it was by a colored man or a white man is not yet known." Wait, what? He didn't mention any white men. In fact, he made huge efforts to be dismissive about the fears of the Black men but completely failed to mention that there had gathered a number of white men first there....including whether or not the white guys were armed. But if later on, he's saying that no one knows who fired the first shot, then you can infer that at least some of the white men who were there that the black men showed up to keep the prisoner safe from...had guns.

These sneaky tricks, lies by omission, denials of reality or whatever they are, are not something new for those times or for unjustified massacres in general. It is interesting and so I went back to look at the Tulsa Tribune of the next day, 01 Jun 1921. You know there are going to be biases in reporting from that time period and geography, too, in a White-owned newspaper, but on page 1, I see the following and I am adding sentence letters for reference:

{a.} Whatever ground it may have had, a story starts that a negro in the county jail was to be lynched. {b.} Out of curiosity a crowd collects. {c.} A small band of negroes brings firearms onto the scene. {d.} At first they were few. {e.} At the outset there was nothing to indicate that the whites had moved to battling protest. {f.} But when the first small band of negroes added to their armed forces the war began. ...​

The first thing here is that in {e} the author mentions "the whites" but just like the author of the letter, failed to mention them explicitly previously. Ergo, when he wrote in {b} that a crowd was collecting, he was actually talking about a white crowd. Also, like the letter, the author fails to mention that at least some of the whites has arms. So in {c} when the author says that arms are brought "onto the scene" by blacks, they fail to mention arms were already on the scene by the whites. The author also reverses the order of events and assigns an innocent motivation to the white crowd in {b} and {a}.

That is, the actual order of events was that the white crowd showed up first. The white crowd was angry. At least some of the white crowd was armed. It is likely that at least some of the whites wanted to lynch the black prisoner and this generated a rumor not only of a possible future lynching, but by the time it made the rounds, it became "he's probably already been lynched" to finally "he has been lynched."

Here is Wikipedia:

Rowland was arrested the following day, on May 31, 1921. With the headline "Nab Negro for Attacking Girl in Elevator" that day's issue of the Tulsa Tribune newspaper claimed Rowland had attacked Page and had torn her clothes.[5][6] A subsequent gathering of angry local whites outside the courthouse where Rowland was being held, and the spread of rumors that he had been lynched, alarmed the local black population, some of whom arrived at the courthouse armed. Shots were fired, and twelve people were killed; ten white and two black.[6]

In retaliation, a riot by whites was sparked that lasted 16 hours, during which time a white mob started fires and airplanes allegedly dropped firebombs. The destruction included 35 city blocks burned down and 1,256 residences in Tulsa's prosperous African American neighborhood of Greenwood destroyed, resulting in over 800 injuries and 37 confirmed dead – 25 black and 12 white.[7] Later accounts have suggested the number of deaths were under-recorded, and the actual death toll was at least 150.[6]

(2) There was indeed an organization of Black Americans called the African Blood Brotherhood, but it was more about self-defense than alleged mass conspiracy to kill Whitey. It should also be mentioned that the group was pretty radical but that is something that is being used to prejudice opinions against it.

(3) Conservolibertarians are often screaming about a right to bear arms and militias, but when it comes to Blacks, it's suddenly, "OMG, they had guns!!!111one" but interestingly found a store of them for self-defense in a basement without any persons using them.

(4) The claims of Rolfe Crum say that the Whites had to kill the Blacks to show the rest of the mass conspiracy that they should not rise up to kill Whitey, but then later on alleges that random thugs and bums burned down all those houses because, you know, it was just some random act disconnected from motivations to destroy Blacks that he was trying to justify.

Hang on. Are you suggesting there’s more to the story that an inexplicable racial pogrom as promoted by current media? Well, whoda thunk it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'd point out 4 things...

(1) From the first letter, the author writes that some 200 fully armed black men show up to the place where the accused black person was being held. He claims he was in no danger at all and the men just randomly showed up. Then, he claims a random shot was fired and no one knows who did it. Look at his specific words, though: "...whether it was by a colored man or a white man is not yet known." Wait, what? He didn't mention any white men. In fact, he made huge efforts to be dismissive about the fears of the Black men but completely failed to mention that there had gathered a number of white men first there....including whether or not the white guys were armed. But if later on, he's saying that no one knows who fired the first shot, then you can infer that at least some of the white men who were there that the black men showed up to keep the prisoner safe from...had guns.

These sneaky tricks, lies by omission, denials of reality or whatever they are, are not something new for those times or for unjustified massacres in general. It is interesting and so I went back to look at the Tulsa Tribune of the next day, 01 Jun 1921. You know there are going to be biases in reporting from that time period and geography, too, in a White-owned newspaper, but on page 1, I see the following and I am adding sentence letters for reference:

{a.} Whatever ground it may have had, a story starts that a negro in the county jail was to be lynched. {b.} Out of curiosity a crowd collects. {c.} A small band of negroes brings firearms onto the scene. {d.} At first they were few. {e.} At the outset there was nothing to indicate that the whites had moved to battling protest. {f.} But when the first small band of negroes added to their armed forces the war began. ...​

The first thing here is that in {e} the author mentions "the whites" but just like the author of the letter, failed to mention them explicitly previously. Ergo, when he wrote in {b} that a crowd was collecting, he was actually talking about a white crowd. Also, like the letter, the author fails to mention that at least some of the whites has arms. So in {c} when the author says that arms are brought "onto the scene" by blacks, they fail to mention arms were already on the scene by the whites. The author also reverses the order of events and assigns an innocent motivation to the white crowd in {b} and {a}.

That is, the actual order of events was that the white crowd showed up first. The white crowd was angry. At least some of the white crowd was armed. It is likely that at least some of the whites wanted to lynch the black prisoner and this generated a rumor not only of a possible future lynching, but by the time it made the rounds, it became "he's probably already been lynched" to finally "he has been lynched."

Here is Wikipedia:


(2) There was indeed an organization of Black Americans called the African Blood Brotherhood, but it was more about self-defense than alleged mass conspiracy to kill Whitey. It should also be mentioned that the group was pretty radical but that is something that is being used to prejudice opinions against it.

(3) Conservolibertarians are often screaming about a right to bear arms and militias, but when it comes to Blacks, it's suddenly, "OMG, they had guns!!!111one" but interestingly found a store of them for self-defense in a basement without any persons using them.

(4) The claims of Rolfe Crum say that the Whites had to kill the Blacks to show the rest of the mass conspiracy that they should not rise up to kill Whitey, but then later on alleges that random thugs and bums burned down all those houses because, you know, it was just some random act disconnected from motivations to destroy Blacks that he was trying to justify.

Hang on. Are you suggesting there’s more to the story that an inexplicable racial pogrom as promoted by current media? Well, whoda thunk it?

Uh, no, I showed how a rational person, can infer from the letters contained within your post image, that there was pro-white bias in the explanations of the persons who wrote those letters. If you cannot follow the logical inferences or even address them, then the problem is with you, certainly not with "current media" by any evidence you have submitted to the thread. So far, you've just made a fool out of yourself and those old white supremacist apologists.

 

[Gospel]

Poverty leads to certain types of crimes, that's for sure. The sort of crimes the wealthy would commit differ from that of those in poverty. For example, would a wealthy person commit a home invitation to steal a television? Would a wealthy person steal food/clothing/electronics from Walmart (much less shop in a place like it?). Have you found any reports of millionaires looting during the BLM protest? I mean a lot of them seem to support BLM, at least one out of the thousands should have been caught by now if poverty isn't a factor. As a matter of fact call me when niggas like Bill Epstein Gate, Jeff Moneyman Peso, and Mark Jiveturkeyberg are caught shoplifting or arrested for armed robbery.

Home invasions are almost always targeted against those expected to have considerable portable wealth--generally criminals with cash or drugs.

Thanks. I'm now totally convinced that the invader's goal is to gain something they already have in abundance.

 

[jab]

I'm trying to think of a major world culture that doesn't have big ugly events in their past.

Nope.

Can't think of one.

Tom

1. Fallacy of pointing to another wrong.
2. At least you're not supporting the myth of American exceptionalism.

 

[jab]

If Rolfe P. Crum of Tulsa and the Bishop -- BISHOP!!! -- of Oklahoma say it's so, well, by golly, you know you can take it to the bank. What motive would a white bishop (I'm still trying to absorb the phrase "Bishop of Oklahoma" -- it's like "Archdeacon of Bessemer" or "Pope of Dumbfuck Egypt") have in distorting the truth about a race riot? In the words of an old blues song, "If Mr. Crum(p) don't like it, ain't gonna have it here."

I'd point out 4 things...

(1) From the first letter, the author writes that some 200 fully armed black men show up to the place where the accused black person was being held. He claims he was in no danger at all and the men just randomly showed up. Then, he claims a random shot was fired and no one knows who did it. Look at his specific words, though: "...whether it was by a colored man or a white man is not yet known." Wait, what? He didn't mention any white men. In fact, he made huge efforts to be dismissive about the fears of the Black men but completely failed to mention that there had gathered a number of white men first there....including whether or not the white guys were armed. But if later on, he's saying that no one knows who fired the first shot, then you can infer that at least some of the white men who were there that the black men showed up to keep the prisoner safe from...had guns.

These sneaky tricks, lies by omission, denials of reality or whatever they are, are not something new for those times or for unjustified massacres in general. It is interesting and so I went back to look at the Tulsa Tribune of the next day, 01 Jun 1921. You know there are going to be biases in reporting from that time period and geography, too, in a White-owned newspaper, but on page 1, I see the following and I am adding sentence letters for reference:

{a.} Whatever ground it may have had, a story starts that a negro in the county jail was to be lynched. {b.} Out of curiosity a crowd collects. {c.} A small band of negroes brings firearms onto the scene. {d.} At first they were few. {e.} At the outset there was nothing to indicate that the whites had moved to battling protest. {f.} But when the first small band of negroes added to their armed forces the war began. ...​

The first thing here is that in {e} the author mentions "the whites" but just like the author of the letter, failed to mention them explicitly previously. Ergo, when he wrote in {b} that a crowd was collecting, he was actually talking about a white crowd. Also, like the letter, the author fails to mention that at least some of the whites has arms. So in {c} when the author says that arms are brought "onto the scene" by blacks, they fail to mention arms were already on the scene by the whites. The author also reverses the order of events and assigns an innocent motivation to the white crowd in {b} and {a}.

That is, the actual order of events was that the white crowd showed up first. The white crowd was angry. At least some of the white crowd was armed. It is likely that at least some of the whites wanted to lynch the black prisoner and this generated a rumor not only of a possible future lynching, but by the time it made the rounds, it became "he's probably already been lynched" to finally "he has been lynched."

Here is Wikipedia:

Rowland was arrested the following day, on May 31, 1921. With the headline "Nab Negro for Attacking Girl in Elevator" that day's issue of the Tulsa Tribune newspaper claimed Rowland had attacked Page and had torn her clothes.[5][6] A subsequent gathering of angry local whites outside the courthouse where Rowland was being held, and the spread of rumors that he had been lynched, alarmed the local black population, some of whom arrived at the courthouse armed. Shots were fired, and twelve people were killed; ten white and two black.[6]

In retaliation, a riot by whites was sparked that lasted 16 hours, during which time a white mob started fires and airplanes allegedly dropped firebombs. The destruction included 35 city blocks burned down and 1,256 residences in Tulsa's prosperous African American neighborhood of Greenwood destroyed, resulting in over 800 injuries and 37 confirmed dead – 25 black and 12 white.[7] Later accounts have suggested the number of deaths were under-recorded, and the actual death toll was at least 150.[6]

(2) There was indeed an organization of Black Americans called the African Blood Brotherhood, but it was more about self-defense than alleged mass conspiracy to kill Whitey. It should also be mentioned that the group was pretty radical but that is something that is being used to prejudice opinions against it.

(3) Conservolibertarians are often screaming about a right to bear arms and militias, but when it comes to Blacks, it's suddenly, "OMG, they had guns!!!111one" but interestingly found a store of them for self-defense in a basement without any persons using them.

(4) The claims of Rolfe Crum say that the Whites had to kill the Blacks to show the rest of the mass conspiracy that they should not rise up to kill Whitey, but then later on alleges that random thugs and bums burned down all those houses because, you know, it was just some random act disconnected from motivations to destroy Blacks that he was trying to justify.

and in 2021, it's all: BLM and Antifa caused the Jan. 6 insurrection!!!! The shock, the horror, the ginned-up indignation!!!!