Talk:Tulsa race massacre

Commission did not say it was a 'conspiracy'

The following lines are inaccurate:

In 1996, 75 years after the massacre, a bipartisan group in the state legislature authorized the formation of the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. The commission's final report, published in 2001, states that the city had conspired with the racist mob;

However page 18 of the Commission's report actually says:

Others — again, including members of this commission — have studied the same question and examined the same evidence, but they have looked at it in different ways. They see there no proof of conspiracy. Selfish desires surely. Awful effects certainly. But not a conspiracy. Both sides have evidence that they consider convincing, but neither side can convince the other.

Recommend that the sentence about the city conspiring with the mob be amended or deleted. 81.6.213.185 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Can someone link to the report? Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Referencing error - Factual inaccuracy

Many black families spent the winter of 1921–1922 in tents as they worked to rebuild. Charles Page was commended for his philanthropic efforts in the wake of the riot in the assistance of 'destitute blacks'.[120]

The first sentence in this para is impossible to link to the cited ref since the ref is to a newspaper article dated June 1921 six months before the winter of 1921-22.

Recommendation: delete the first sentence.

That deletion also requires a factual correction since the statement is untrue: see Ref 122.

Ref 122 is to the Red Cross report and to associated documents dated 30th December 1921.

The Red Cross reports that by that date, 30th December, only 49 families remained in tented accommodation compared to several thousand persons in June.

More surprisingly the same Red Cross archive contains a letter dated 24th December 1921 signed by prominent Greenwood residents (not least 'Buck' Franklin) which notes the remarkable success of the Red Cross efforts, and expressly stating that not only had most residents been re-housed by then, but in homes better than those they had lost in the fire.

Far from having limited success the Red Cross relief effort was an astonishing achievement in a very short time.

The following paragraph reffed to [122] is therefore nonsense compared to what the document(s) actually says if one reads the whole file.

Despite the Red Cross's best efforts to assist with the reconstruction of Greenwood's residential area, the considerably altered present-day layout of the district and its surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the extensive redevelopment of Greenwood by people unaffiliated with the neighborhood prior to the riot, stand as proof that the Red Cross relief efforts had limited success.[122]

Recommend that the para be rewritten to emphasize the enormous and speedy success of the Red Cross effort, not least in the rapid rebuilding of Greenwood. 81.6.213.185 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That letter seems to be more in praise of Mr Willow, and not of the red cross, also reads faintly racist, a variant of the white man's burden. As a primary source, no it cannot be used to heap praise on anyone. Also, I am unsure if it can be used to talk about future events, so where does it say anything that supports "stand as proof that the Red Cross relief efforts had limited success". Slatersteven (talk)

Sarah Page’s Age at Time of Incident

This says she was 21, but I saw another article say she was 17 at the time of the incident: https://www.tulsalibrary.org/tulsa-race-riot-1921

can this be confirmed? 76.154.6.123 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. She was 21. The ref overleaf confirms it in detail. The 'age 17' stems simply from her age being incorrectly reported in the initial newspaper article. 81.6.213.185 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)