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

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

In a nutshell black activists are dredging up ancient history trying to find something they can use for monetary benefit....aka reparations and the media is doing their best to help them by prsenting fake news that distorts the truth for the benefit of the Africans in America.

 

[Unkotare]

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.!!

All that time and YOU haven't learned a damn thing. What a waste.

 

[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 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.

I'll give you a taste of how the media is steering us today to make my point.

I will analyze the covering of two shootings, one in Atlanta and the other in Colorado by the media and both covered by Reuters whom many view as someone objective and reporting the news.

Sex addiction may have driven suspect in Georgia spa shootings -authorities

(Reuters) -The Georgia man arrested in connection with shootings at Atlanta-area day spas that left eight people dead, including six Asian women, indicated he had issues with sexual addiction, law enforcement officials said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

1. The shooter in Atlanta has his white face plastered on the screen for all to see.

2. The story goes on and on and on about how he was a devout Christian

3. It says that although he did not cite and racial motivations for the shootings, that it was entirely possible that there was at least a racial undertone for the shootings as 6 of the 8 who died were Asian.

Now lets look at the shooting in Colorado.

Motive still unclear in Colorado mass shooting as suspect faces murder charges

Police on Tuesday publicly identified the suspect accused of killing 10 people - including a policeman - in a hail of bullets at a Colorado supermarket, marking the second deadly U.S. mass shooting in a week and adding to the state's tragic history of lethal gun violence.

www.reuters.com

1. The article used the name of the shooter which was Middle East sounding only once, but made no reference as to his race.

2. The story made no mention that all of the people killed were white, they only gave us their names.

3. There was no mention that the shooting may have been racially motivated, even though all the victims were ALL white.

4. In fact, the article made sure to use a quote from the police that “It would be premature for us to draw any conclusions at this time,", while in the article before it they speculated all day about the motives of the Atlanta shooter being racially motivated despite NO evidence.

5. They then switched gears to talk about the need for gun control. When the shooter is white, they talk about white race wars but when the shooter is of color they talk about the need for gun control.

6. There is no mention of the religion he identified with, a man who came from Syria and most likely Muslim

7. The article made no mention that Biden had just bombed Syria a few days prior, with a possible connection. In fact, the article only talked about him being crazy.


So now you can read similar stories in the future with the same lens The media is hyping up more racial violence as they did in the past when the media targeted black folk, only, now it is white folk.

In fact, I want reparations for white folk for what they are attempting to do now.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The insurance companies at the time never paid out They should be made to pay out now.

 

[Votto]

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.!!

All that time and YOU haven't learned a damn thing. What a waste.

He has a point. When slaves were brought to Jamestown, they made two laws. Blacks were not allowed to be armed and they were not allowed to own property. However, the Left wants to take away both arms and property from all of us.

Chilling.

And it is all being pushed in the media like it was back in the 1600's.

 

[Polishprince]

The insurance companies at the time never paid out They should be made to pay out now.

There are time limits to make a claim and procedures to follow if they decide not to honor a claim.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The insurance companies at the time never paid out They should be made to pay out now.

There are time limits to make a claim and procedures to follow if they decide not to honor a claim.

Well they refused to pay at a time when the US was a racist cess pit. We should have moved on from that and they should be compelled to honour those policies.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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 media blamed the blacks??? You got a link for dat?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Blame the media my foot?
It was the biggest mass slaughter of blacks in history for no reason.
The white republicans who controlled the news were so embarrassed they refused to talk about.
That racist sentiment is still here today on these forums.
Blame the media for not saying anything. Rubbish.

Ridiculous....how do you come to such fallacious conclusions.....36 blacks killed.....11 whites killed

Yet you want to claim it was the biggest mass slaughter of blacks in history? Get real Chump.

 

[themirrorthief]

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.!!

Yes, most conservatives are truly this ignorant and stupid.

ahh, another sweet peace loving non judgmental leftard

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Xi ordered his US media outlets to stoke racial tensions

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Blame the media my foot?
It was the biggest mass slaughter of blacks in history for no reason.
The white republicans who controlled the news were so embarrassed they refused to talk about.
That racist sentiment is still here today on these forums.
Blame the media for not saying anything. Rubbish.

Ridiculous....how do you come to such fallacious conclusions.....36 blacks killed.....11 whites killed

Yet you want to claim it was the biggest mass slaughter of blacks in history? Get real Chump.

I

 

[Lakhota]

PRESIDENT BIDEN: REMEMBER THE TULSA RACE MASSACRE ...100 Years Later​

 

[bodecea]

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.

Fascinating.....you must be one of those gun-control freaks we hear about all the time.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

View attachment 495712

A newly discovered mass grave will be excavated this summer.​

A Tulsa mass grave may answer questions about the 1921 race massacre | Science News

A century ago, hundreds of people died in a horrific eruption of racial violence in Tulsa. A team of researchers may have found a mass grave from the event.

www.sciencenews.org

The mass graves are fairy tales...why do you believe the lies about it existing?

What do you think they did with the bodies?

Imagined them because the claims of the number of dead is often made up bullshit along with their never able to find mass graves that they keep finding idiots claiming that they saw ........

 

[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.

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.

In a nutshell black activists are dredging up ancient history trying to find something they can use for monetary benefit....aka reparations and the media is doing their best to help them by prsenting fake news that distorts the truth for the benefit of the Africans in America.

"ancient history"? You poor thing.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Actually there is claims that the media were whipping people up..........and tulsa had lynched a criminal a year earlier............but he was white.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

In a nutshell black activists are dredging up ancient history trying to find something they can use for monetary benefit....aka reparations and the media is doing their best to help them by prsenting fake news that distorts the truth for the benefit of the Africans in America.

HBO is trying to help as well ..they released teh WATCHMAN last year and about the same time, history of what happened has been rewritten with black activists getting their "facts" from the show instead of actual history.

 

[Lakhota]

The PBS documentary is also great.

 

[Polishprince]

View attachment 495937

PRESIDENT BIDEN: REMEMBER THE TULSA RACE MASSACRE ...100 Years Later​

Biden is a lowlife, and this proclamation documents it.

To attack the Honkies of 1921 Tulsa after they have been room temperature for decades and blame them alone for the riots and to assign "white supremacy" as the motive is a cowardly move.

Why didn't libs like FDR or Truman or JFK denounce these people while they were still alive and could defend themselves on the charges?

Were those folks all cowards?