Talk:Tulsa race massacre

Riot and Massacre
I'm going to state my case here for why I think Tulsa Race Riot is a more accurate term.

Riot in the US, post 1992 and especially the last 15 years, has developed a far more narrow meaning and usage then both historically and in most other parts of the world.

Definitionally, a riot is a spontaneous and mostly unorganized* outbreak of 'riotous' behavior, leading to large scale property damage and often fatalities by rioters(sometimes called angry mobs). Riotous behavior. Bottom up and not top down. Something makes a bunch of people angry, they lash out at property and often life. Basic animalistic emotional shit.

(*The violence is initially unorganized. Whatever reason that many people ended up together in the first place, whether for a protest or for a sports game or just because it's a busy part of town might or might not be organized, and some degree of organizational response often occurs in lengthy riots, but the violence against property and person is initially spontaneous and importantly isn't being ordered or planned in detail.).

The US as of late tends to specifically associate riots with violent protests, protests gone wrong, both political parties have reason to back this and this isn't meant to be a call out. One side wants to protect everyone on their side even if they get too violent, the other side wants to demonize everyone on their side even the ones who weren't, they work together to strengthen the association. This is true no matter which direction you read this statements and who you assume I mean to some degree regardless.

As such, specifically US events, and more specifically hotbed ones to the current relevant topics of the day(in this case, Tulsa and Elaine specifically). I'm going to cite Tulsa as my example here, but most of it also applies to Elaine(albeit I'd say Elaine actually has a stronger argument for fitting Massacre then Tulsa does in at least one way).

Tulsa was a sudden outbreak of riotous behavior. It wasn't planned ahead or ordered top down by generals or fuhrers or el presidentes. It was in response to something(in this case an allegeded assault on a white girl by a black man, probably didn't happen, but the complaint doesn't have to be real, just the emotional reaction), massive emotional reaction by the white community, they respond by taking out their anger on black property and black people. The same basic template applies to a modern riot. People get angry about an event(this could be anything from Lockdowns to George Floyd to Wage Increases to Who Won an Election), they direct their anger at people and property they view as responsible(Doctors and health professionals, racist institutions and white cops, Capitalists and wealthy organizations, people on the other side of the political spectrum and their allies), and property and people associated with that anger get targeted. Also, while it's not often the case, the side doing the 'riotous behavior' USUALLY views themselves as being part of an 'in-group' with the victimized or allegedly victimized party.

This is not an attempt to draw moral equivalence. God. No. This is an attempt to draw linguistic and structural equivalence.

Let's cite some other events Wikipedia and the world at large call riots. The Delhi Riots of 84. Prime Minister Gandhi is assassinated by a Sikh body guard. There's our triggering event. People who were aligned with her(ethnic Hindi and political allies in this specific case) got angry and emotional at this event, they will be the ones doing the 'riotous' behavior. Ethnic Sikhs in the city, especially those with known ties to extremist organizations involved in the murder, are our associates that will be the target of the property and person damage. Days of violence follow, hundreds of Sikhs die, thousands of homes and businesses are destroyed. India calls it a riot, Wikipedia calls it a riot.

Or let's say the 1947 Aleppo Riots. We've got some alleged blood libel shit going on(blood libel libel if you will), there's our triggering event, this horrific claim. The cities Jews are the associates to this act who will be on the recieving end. Businesses burned, windows broken, Jews killed, you know the script by now.

Sports riot, team lost, fans angry, other team and their fans get targeted. Prison riot, prisoners upset, prisoners unstable, prisoners get opportunity to break out on mass, they unleash it on the guards and staff. I should also note that well it's anger 99% of the time because...that's the emotion that tends to trigger humans to break shit and hurt people, there are cases(usually sports riots and usually with alcohol involved) where strong positive emotions lead to riotous behavior and property damage, albeit not usually deaths.

And let's finish off with the LA Riots, more modern, less contentious. Rodney King, black man with minor charges, beaten severely by white cops with a known record of racism. Massive black and pro-black backlash, they're the ones with the riot. The LAPD, White Nationalists, people involved in the trial, and anyone SEEN to be supporting them(even if they may not factually be doing so) are going to be on the receiving end this time. Days of property damage and death, largely against police institutions and wealthy white sectors This also triggers counter riots which are absolutely a thing(The initial event here is the first riot, the target is the people viewed as supporting the first riot, so on).

The Tulsa Race Riot fits the definition perfectly. It fits the template.

Massacre tends to carry a far more military and organized connotation, usually(but not always) both. Wounded Knee was not done by angry members of the public, it was done by the US Military. Tianamen Square was done by the Chinese government. Members of the public or non-state groups CAN absolutely do massacres(Beslan Siege is a non-state example. Port Arthur is a good public example), but the burden of planning tends to be viewed slightly higher, and there's OFTEN a degree of backing by state or semi-state actors. ISIS does massacres, see Tikrit. The Tusla Race Riots weren't a planned event. Some actions within may have been planned, but the intial riots were triggered by racial tensions being brought to bursting point when a bunch of white guys got told some white girl had been raped. The fact the military showed up in the final phase of the event to quash it doesn't change that fact. They also showed up in LA92 and Dehli. They weren't planning it or involved on Day 1, they showed up later to clean up the mess.

I'd also like to bring up the word Pogram here, as it somewhat bridges the gap. Pogram's are generally used to specifically refer to Jewish events(so not an option here, but I do have more to say), and they're usually seperated from Anti-Jewish Riots by the degree of government involvement. If the authorities are specifically the ones fueling and encouraging the riots, ordering them, providing firearms, or directing and planning the event against Jews, it's a pogram. If it's completely down up with the government simply neglecting the situation, that's an anti-Jewish riot. Kristellnacht was a pogram, because despite the best efforts of propaganda at the time to portray this as an organic act by patriotic Germans angry at greedy and corrupt Jewish business owners....it wasn't. Documents reveal the bulk of the damage was done by SS and Paramilirty and the public that was involved often had to be coerced at worst or at best only joined in when they saw a ton of other people dressed like civilians doing it. That's a pogram. I bring this up despite it not being a valid option for Tulsa because I know some people are going to say 'Aleppo wasn't a riot, it was a pogram'. Wikipedia has it listed as a riot, so for my argument that's all I need, but I will say the case mostly hinges on whether or not you believe the Syrian State was directly involved in instigating it and sent government forces to back the rioters(which some do, some don't) or whether you think they just neglected the situation. We don't have all the info there, so Riot on the side of caution here.

That's also why I said Elaine, while still best fitting Riot in my view, as a better argument for something else than Tulsa. There IS evidence of a degree of organization and planning within Elaine that was not present at Tulsa, though again, to what degree is not fully clear and the distinction does matter. And regardless the bulk of the violence was clearly done by the mobs.

Lastly I'd like to counter the claim that calling Tulsa specifically a riot was whitewashing or an effort to blame black people or simply a name designed to hide the event. It wasn't That's how we used the word riot in the US until very recently and that's how historians and most of the world still uses it. We know what the 'blameshifting and whitewashed names' used by people who actually wanted to cover up the events were. "Negroe Insurrection". "Black Uprising". "Planned/General Massacre of Whites" and "[HARD R] Revolution". Shit implying it was either a planned mass murder of whites that was 'foiled' or otherwise tried to portray it as treasonous or Haitian revolution 1804 in the US. Riot was the accurate term used by people who knew what had actually happened, especially in the North. It's what is accurate. Tulsa Race Riot is accurate.

Oh and only these two events got renamed because pop culture brought them up. There were others, others in the US, others with the same target and targetees. Atlanta Race Riot is the bloodiest, but honestly just google around and you'll find a bunch. So I also cite WP:Consistency here. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:75F4:AB92:91B:E2DE (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You have exerted no leverage in the form of references to the literature on the topic. Modern scholarship will provide the proper style for this article. You might want to give it a rest now, having made your arguments as Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:5054:2A99:3576:E40F in March, preceded by Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:91E0:70D:A479:6EF9 and Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:CDEB:A0F3:2A49:ECD1 in February. None of these arguments have referred to modern scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just proud of myself for getting that all out so clearly honestly 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:394B:4E49:8DB7:BFB4 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate number of deaths
Seems like number of confirmed deaths should be higher, given 120 graves being reported on by AP News: https://apnews.com/article/tulsa-1921-race-massacre-graves-identified-c7cdcd5ca4e54ec27bbb836beae86404

Is this article out of date or is there a reason to have various casualty estimates? Ma7ged (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * AP News has simply misreported the facts. The Oaklawn cemetery contains many hundreds of ordinary unmarked graves. They are simply graves with no headstone. Just one of those recently excavated has been linked to the 1921 event. Nor did any contemporary ever report that 300 blacks died.That figure first came from the report by the Tulsa Red Cross in the which its head wrote that he didn't know how many had died but that he had heard estimates ranging from 50 to 300. But any such estimate included white fatalities as well as black. 92.26.176.67 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Age of Sarah Page
In this article her age is listed at 17 at the time of the incident; however, in the related article for Dick Rowland, her age is listed as 21. There seems to be references for both versions, so perhaps listing both or stating it's disputed would be preferred? Regardless of the outcome the fact that conflicting info on two closely related articles exists should be addressed 2600:8807:C602:B900:F578:1691:A889:33A7 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Confusion arises because although the original newspaper report (and repeated many times since) say she was 17 she was in fact 21. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that she was 21. The question is how to deal with the point because so many sources incorrectly say 17. 92.26.176.67 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When there's disagreement between generally reliable sources, we often report the disagreement (when we can find RS describing the disagreement). The worry is WP:Original synthesis, which we should always avoid. I'm certain there's recent scholarship on both subjects. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)