Weighing What Is Known, Versus What Is Said, About the Infamous Tulsa Riots

cantbeproductive - [original thread]

The Tulsa Riots (or, I "Massacre" I guess we're supposed to call it now) is one of the most blatant revisions of history in the last few years. It wasn't talked about for the last century not because of a conspiracy of silence, but because it was a complicated urban race war in which no side comes out looking like angels.

For a short take, what are your big part peeves?

I’m going mad with the history revision. One day I want to make an effort post about all that the popular narrative gets wrong here. It’s a lot.

Well I can start with what the media is lying about.

  • "The boy only tripped, the girl didn't file a complaint, the police didn't think anything significant happened," these variations are found everywhere. They are wrong. The boy claimed that he tripped and grabbed her arm in the elevator -- this is the evidence we have that he tripped and grabbed her arm: he said that. He claimed that only after being tracked down by the police the next day. He ran out of the elevator after making a young girl (an orphan) scream so loud that an employee ran to her aid; the employee then called for the police and the police interviewed the girl who told them she was assaulted. The girl participated in the police inquiry fully and went to the station to identify the boy the next day when he was found by the police hiding out somewhere. The girl did file a complaint, and the police filed state charges -- this is attested to by those in charge of the PD. Now, there's an article in the Tulsa World newspaper that reported the police chief saying no assault occurred, but the day after the World reported this a separate newspaper called the Telegraph reported that the police chief 100% denied making these comments in the World. Sorry, that's as simple as I can make that complicated chain of events. The Telegraph came with a signed statement by the police chief, and so we must trust that the Telegraph was right on this and not the World (which was the progressive newspaper at the time, and probably wanted to force a peace between the town). This is a big part of the story. We have all the reason to believe that the girl was telling the truth and was in fact assaulted. We have no reason at all, literally none, to believe that she lied. I know of no false rape accusation in history where a chance encounter of 5-30 seconds led to the woman immediately screaming that she was assaulted; nearly every false rape accusation occurs after a longer period of time or between two individuals that know each other. The girl would have her reputation sullied if she was known as once being sexually assaulted, so really, there's no reason to believe she was lying. Humans can tell the difference between tripping (in an elevator? lmao) and being assault.

  • The Tulsa World did not report a story titled "lynch the -----", that did not happen, we know that for a fact. First, because anyone who wrote that could face state charges (there's a reason the KKK wears a mask); second, because it would be an egregious overstep for a progressive newspaper to publicly call for a lynching; third, because no one in any authority referenced this article (it appears from Parish's book recounting the stories of the black residents); fourth, because someone a couple years ago dug up the original editorial and did not find it. So it did not happen.

  • A white man was lynched the year prior in Tulsa. Race was an aggrandizing factor, not a sufficient factor in lynchings.

  • The white crowd that gathered at the jail came to see a lynching, and only a handful of the men actually sought to lynch the person. There was a rumor about a lynching, and because people were bored in the 1920's, they wanted to see it.

Then, some things that are completely missing from the popular narrative

  • A grand jury of reputable residents was summoned by a Judge and two weeks after the riot they reported that it was caused by the armed black mob.

  • The mayor and the national guard also blamed it on the black mob, as well as on sensational newspaper reporting.

  • The armed black mob was responsible for at least 5 of the 7 first deaths

  • We have firsthand reports from the newspapers at the time, from the grand jury conclusions, as well as from Redfearn's insurance case which made it's way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Everything else is hopelessly mythologized. For instance, that the newspaper exhorted the town to lynch Rowland is total mythology from the black accounts, but it's somehow made it's way into 21st century history.

There's a decent timeline of the events here. For instance, what was the first act of violence? Was it when a white police officer was threatened to be lynched by the armed black mob? Was it when the armed black mob traveled by car to the white part of the city? Was it when Johnny Cole (Black) refused to disarm and shot his weapon when a police officer tried to take it?

If you want a source for one or maybe two of these let me know, I don't want to source all of them at this time.