Biden Speech at the Tulsa Race Massacre Memorial June-01-2021

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: HONROC
a reply to: xuenchen

How have I never heard of this until this year? I am a well informed person and think they are dredging this up to just create further division and push a racist agenda through

I had heard of it and I haven't been within 3000 miles of the USA since 1998.

The MSM shy away from this kind of story because it scares its advertisers but, like all history. it's not secret.

It's not being dredged up to create division. It's a painful part of your history, important enough to need recognising and commemorating.

If you don't like it look away.

What's painful about it? A white girl supposedly got assaulted by a black dude (most likely he didn't even touch her), black dude got arrested, rumors started to spread, armed blacks showed up at the courthouse where the black dude was, all hell broke loose with gunfire and 10 white guys lay dead when the smoke cleared, along with 2 blacks. Whites retaliated and went after the blacks.

100 years later and the story is told out of context to continue to keep blacks and whites divided under the lie that white people are racist and out to get black people. Weak-minded people eat it up.

originally posted by: LSU2018
Whites retaliated and went after the blacks.

Sanctioned by the government and the 'retaliation' was indiscriminate and total. This wasn't some small dustup, they burnt pretty much every business to the ground while dropping bombs on them from aircraft.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
Whites retaliated and went after the blacks.

Sanctioned by the government and the 'retaliation' was indiscriminate and total. This wasn't some small dustup, they burnt pretty much every business to the ground while dropping bombs on them from aircraft.

What kind of aircraft bombers were used ? 😧

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's amazing how the same people that spent all summer crying about the BLM protests have no problem with property damage and loss of life when it's in response to some white people being killed.

originally posted by: xuenchen
What kind of aircraft bombers were used ? 😧

Law enforcement officials later said that the planes were to provide reconnaissance and protect against a "Negro uprising" Madigan, Tim. 2001. The Burning: Massacre, Destruction, and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 4, 131–32, 144, 159, 164, 249. ISBN 0-312-27283-9

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
It's amazing how the same people that spent all summer crying about the BLM protests have no problem with property damage and loss of life when it's in response to some white people being killed.

The funnier part is the black citizens went to support the white sheriff because he was completely outnumbered and demands were being made to turn the suspect over.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Reread the post I replied to. He said we were the first nation to abolish slavery. Last time I checked we were the nation of the United States of America. Not Pennsylvania.

Ultimately, a group of settlers with New Hampshire land grant titles established the Vermont Republic in 1777 as an independent state during the American Revolutionary War. The Vermont Republic abolished slavery before any of the other states.

Vermont was admitted to the newly established United States as the fourteenth state in 1791.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Vermont Republic was before any of your listed euros as well.
As I posted previously, you lack.
1777 never forget!
To bad the euros were clearly behind the times!

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Guess what? Slavery is still legal in the US as well. We've just disguised it as our criminal justice system.

Slavery is still constitutionally legal in the U.S.; that must end

Your, quite clearly, butthurt opinion, is not law; nor are you Oxford, able to give words the meaning you would like attached.
Don't want the time, don't do the crime.
You, attempting to conflate the two, is hilarious.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: AntiDoppleganger

Once again, it still means that America was not the 1st Western nation to abolish slavery as the other person claimed. I don't get why you people are trying to begin over backwards to prove this point that is demonstrably false.

See the Vermont Republic mr smartie!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
Whites retaliated and went after the blacks.

Sanctioned by the government and the 'retaliation' was indiscriminate and total. This wasn't some small dustup, they burnt pretty much every business to the ground while dropping bombs on them from aircraft.

I wouldn't say they dropped bombs. They dropped turpentine balls. The evidence of nitroglycerin was never substantiated.

The kicker is that the media then was as bad as the media today when it comes to dividing us.

"Chief of Detectives James Patton attributed the cause of the riots entirely to the newspaper account and stated, "If the facts in the story as told by the police had only been printed I do not think there would have been any riot whatsoever."

Because of the newspaper report, 10 white people were shot and killed by 75+ black people. It was after that when the whites dispersed and went home to get their guns. Both sides were wrong, but only one side is vilified. Gotta keep that divide going.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's amazing how the same people that spent all summer crying about the BLM protests have no problem with property damage and loss of life when it's in response to some white people being killed.

*sigh*

Whatever. Both sides were wrong, both sides made bad decisions, but only one side is crucified and labeled as evil. If the party crying for equality actually pushed for equality then both sides would be crucified or neither side would be. You may not mind double standards but I'm not a fan.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The ban in Vermont was only a partial ban and not strictly enforced. If we're going with partial bans, in 1707 the British court ruled "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave."

a reply to: shooterbrody

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That is the exact wording of the 13th Amendment. Seems pretty clear that slavery is not completely abolished in the US.

originally posted by: LSU2018
I wouldn't say they dropped bombs.

An incendiary device dropped by an aircraft qualifies as a firebomb for me.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

The ban in Vermont was only a partial ban and not strictly enforced. If we're going with partial bans, in 1707 the British court ruled "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave."

Lol
What part of ABOLISHED do you not get.
No bs your opinion "partial ban".
It was ABOLISHED.
1777
You lose
Good Day Sir

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That is the exact wording of the 13th Amendment. Seems pretty clear that slavery is not completely abolished in the US.

Don't like the time, don't do the crime.
Or are other first world nations not giving prison time for crimes?
Lol
Too freaking funny

a reply to: shooterbrody

From the 1st Chapter of the Constitution of Vermont:

no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent

Seems to me that still allows for males to be enslaved before the age of 21 and females before the age of 18. So yes, it was a partial ban. Unless you don't consider enslavement of children to actually be enslavement.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

State Laws don't over ride Federal 😊

a reply to: shooterbrody

The US is actually one of only a few countries that still incorporates punitive labor in its penal system. England and France abolished it back in the 50s.

a reply to: xuenchen

Except in 1777 there was no federal law. In fact, in 1777 Vermont styled itself as its own independent nation. Thus the reason shooter brought it up in the conversation.