7 ms·

Some argue that the massacre of Blacks in Oklahoma was because of their economic success. What was called the Black Wall Street. Although they were massacred t

Some argue that the massacre of Blacks in Oklahoma was because of their economic success. What was called the Black Wall Street. Although they were massacred throughout history even when they were poor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

savant_penguin 5y ago
"some of whom had been deputized and given weapons by city officials" Holy shit
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  In the weeks running up to the massacre, black men desperately tried to purchase firearms to defend themselves with. Remington purposefully gave them the run around so that they couldn’t buy guns, as they legally should have been able to, leading to their deaths. Remington knew what was going to happen, but they decided they cared about their reputation more than black people’s lives. I think we should resurrect some old school name-damning punishment for those that perpetrated this massacre. Their grave sites should be smashed, and their remains cast into an anonymous pit. It’s too late to give them the capital punishment they deserved, but we can damn their name and memory for all ages.
  - sudhirj 5y ago
    Dave Chapelle has an interesting take/joke on gun control: get everyone who can legally buy a gun to buy one. If the people you don't like (outgroup / different race) also benefit from the same "freedoms" you hold dear, some thinking will start to happen.
    - brightball 5y ago
      FWIW, this is the view point held by many people regarded as “gun nuts”. If everybody has them, the violence against anyone carries the threat of deadly force in response. There is no greater deterrent to violence. There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected.
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        Mass shootings are headline grabbing, but the majority of homicides are interpersonal conflicts that escalate. If everyone had guns, there's no way it would not result in more gun deaths.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Even if your uncited claim IS correct..so what. Freedom is not safe and safety is not freedom. The world is not safe.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Not really a joke, that’s actual history. Reagan signed a gun control bill into California law in direct response to the black panthers protesting under arms.
      - uselesscynicism 5y ago
        The Democrat controlled Congress also got him to sign the National Firearms Act So we can agree that gun control is racist, at least if one Republican forty years ago signed a gun control bill? Because I have to tell you something about which party has written and signed more gun control bills than the other, and it's the one that calls itself "anti racist" Or is gun control only racist if it's signed by a Republican? What point are you trying to make?
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        Ronald Reagan signed anti gun bills as president too. He was generally more pro gun control than history remembers him for. For instance, he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 which severely restricted multiple categories of firearms ownership for everyone nationwide (not just minorities).
    - ydlr 5y ago
      It is a strategy known to work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  Remember, slavery itself was normal only 60 years earlier (and was abolished via a civil war, not a popular vote). This massacre, which had the support of many citizens, some businesses, and some government, is still in living memory - there are thousands of Americans alive today who were ~5-13 years old at the time. Ideas take much longer to die than people do. Considering all this, it seems clear that the long tail of evil and hatred in the US will linger for at least many decades more, maybe centuries, but hopefully shrinking the whole way.
klyrs 5y ago
The Trail of Tears was seen as a great compromise, at the time: between racists who wanted to exterminate indigenous peoples, and progressives who didn't want the genocide to go ahead. They agreed on a peaceful solution: let 'em starve to death on an exodus from their homeland, instead. Some blame the wealth of Jewish people for the Holocaust, too. They called themselves Nazis.

savant_penguin 5y ago

"some of whom had been deputized and given weapons by city officials" Holy shit

ashtonkem 5y ago
In the weeks running up to the massacre, black men desperately tried to purchase firearms to defend themselves with. Remington purposefully gave them the run around so that they couldn’t buy guns, as they legally should have been able to, leading to their deaths. Remington knew what was going to happen, but they decided they cared about their reputation more than black people’s lives. I think we should resurrect some old school name-damning punishment for those that perpetrated this massacre. Their grave sites should be smashed, and their remains cast into an anonymous pit. It’s too late to give them the capital punishment they deserved, but we can damn their name and memory for all ages.
- sudhirj 5y ago
  Dave Chapelle has an interesting take/joke on gun control: get everyone who can legally buy a gun to buy one. If the people you don't like (outgroup / different race) also benefit from the same "freedoms" you hold dear, some thinking will start to happen.
  - brightball 5y ago
    FWIW, this is the view point held by many people regarded as “gun nuts”. If everybody has them, the violence against anyone carries the threat of deadly force in response. There is no greater deterrent to violence. There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      Mass shootings are headline grabbing, but the majority of homicides are interpersonal conflicts that escalate. If everyone had guns, there's no way it would not result in more gun deaths.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Even if your uncited claim IS correct..so what. Freedom is not safe and safety is not freedom. The world is not safe.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Not really a joke, that’s actual history. Reagan signed a gun control bill into California law in direct response to the black panthers protesting under arms.
    - uselesscynicism 5y ago
      The Democrat controlled Congress also got him to sign the National Firearms Act So we can agree that gun control is racist, at least if one Republican forty years ago signed a gun control bill? Because I have to tell you something about which party has written and signed more gun control bills than the other, and it's the one that calls itself "anti racist" Or is gun control only racist if it's signed by a Republican? What point are you trying to make?
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Ronald Reagan signed anti gun bills as president too. He was generally more pro gun control than history remembers him for. For instance, he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 which severely restricted multiple categories of firearms ownership for everyone nationwide (not just minorities).
  - ydlr 5y ago
    It is a strategy known to work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
happytoexplain 5y ago
Remember, slavery itself was normal only 60 years earlier (and was abolished via a civil war, not a popular vote). This massacre, which had the support of many citizens, some businesses, and some government, is still in living memory - there are thousands of Americans alive today who were ~5-13 years old at the time. Ideas take much longer to die than people do. Considering all this, it seems clear that the long tail of evil and hatred in the US will linger for at least many decades more, maybe centuries, but hopefully shrinking the whole way.

klyrs 5y ago

The Trail of Tears was seen as a great compromise, at the time: between racists who wanted to exterminate indigenous peoples, and progressives who didn't want the genocide to go ahead. They agreed on a peaceful solution: let 'em starve to death on an exodus from their homeland, instead. Some blame the wealth of Jewish people for the Holocaust, too. They called themselves Nazis.