Talk:Tulsa race massacre

Praise and Problems

The Tulsa event is historically problematic because despite being a very real event it has been subject to journalistic sensationalism, dramatization, politicization, and folk myth.

Editorial selection is therefore challenging, not least since if we think we already know the story we are likely to be influenced by that questionable foreknowledge to include elements which confirm our expectations, and to omit or ignore material which runs counter to our expectations.

But despite those difficulties this wikipage is still by far the best source of information about the Tulsa event of 1921 available on the Internet.

There are however some areas which should be improved:

1.The title Tulsa Race 'Massacre' is fine; that is the official designation the event now goes by. But the word 'massacre' needs to be used with care and discretion in the general text, first because there were in effect two massacres, one of whites and one of blacks; and indeed the second of those might be equally described as a 'battle' rather than a 'massacre'.

2.The Klu Klux Klan rightly gets a mention, it's exactly what we would expect. But what about the role of the African Blood Brotherhood? At the time it was the ABB which was widely blamed for the whole debacle. Meanwhile the ABB claimed that in the aftermath there were indeed secret mass graves - but of white casualties, not of black! Here's one link, but there are many others:

https://revolutionsnewsstand.com/2023/02/10/the-tulsa-riot-by-commander-tulsa-post-african-blood-brotherhood-from-the-crusader-vol-4-no-5-july-1921/

3. 'Buck' Franklin's celebrated account of the bombing of Greenwood rightly gets given prominence. It was given extensive publicity when it was discovered. It's content is exactly what we would expect. But any college student who quotes from it will himself/herself surely get shot down in academic flames if he or she fails to mention that, puzzlingly, Franklin published a very different and totally contradictory account of his experiences in his autobiography 'My Life and an Era' (Available from Amazon). Far better, and academically proper, to quote from both.

These criticisms aside I'd like to emphasize that this wikipage is by far the best source of information available about this complicated, confused and confusing subject. All other sources are far less trustworthy and/or omit key information. Well done wikipedians. 92.26.176.67 (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It is incorrect to propose that contemporary news items would be valuable here. What's valuable is the careful analysis of scholars and historians. Recent scholarship is usually best. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)