3 ms·

It's... pretty simple.

• b112 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  • uoaei 6mo ago
    Your refusal to interact with subtext has me guffawing. I wonder if you even recognize what you're doing. In the history of revolution, there is never (except in elementary school) all that much weight put on the singular act which instigated the final result. The conditions in place (Jim Crow laws, Southern pride, etc.) lead up to a final moment which our monkey brains like to point to as the cause but in reality there is a simmering cultural froth which could boil over in any number of ways: it just happens that one of the ways is what's described in the Wikipedia article, but it could have started many other ways. All of our understanding about the experience of being Black in the US during that time helps to contextualize the extreme and disproportionate outburst of violence by the White population as racially motivated, serving under an ideology best described as ur-"Great Replacement Theory". In simpler words, the destruction of Black Wall Street is not without precedent, indeed this was merely one of the more famous and complete examples of destroying the wealth that Black people enjoyed, if only briefly due to the hate of those visiting violence upon them.
    • rithdmc 6mo ago
      > I wonder if you even recognize what you're doing. "Don't feed the trolls". They absolutely do know what they're doing.
  • kennywinker 6mo ago
    You really read a single wikipedia article and think you understand what happened and why? Impressive levels of dunning-kruger on display. Go read a book about it, and then if you still want to, you can tell us why this interpretation is wrong.