It started when a large group of armed blacks opened fire on a crowd of whites, when a white deputy tried to disarm one of them.
The whites fell back to arm themselves, and the battle was on, with lots of shooting on both sides. Unfortunately for the black side, the whites were better shots.
Timeline of the Tulsa race battle
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/riot/tulsatime.html
I could see a repetition of that happening if an armed BLM march gets into a firefight.
btt
Re: 8 - Come on - that’s not when the riot started. You’re missing a whole group of acts that are both violent and otherwise.
I believe I read this (or similar) on a previous anniversary of the riot.
It seems that the riot was not the fault of one side or the other but simply the result of on going animosity on both sides.
And as usual the minority loses.
As Stalin said Quantity has a quality all its own.
As for reparations, I suppose the BLM sympathizers would argue the families of those who were asked to surrender and were subsequently killed when they would not, should receive reparations regardless of their actions.
There is no way to fairly distribute reparations at this late date.
A city, particularly in this country in this day and age is like a river, ‘you don’t step in the same river twice’.
The families that lived their then have largely moved on and new families have moved in. Those who lived in Tulsa then are almost all dead and those born since live there now. Certainly, those who governed Tulsa then are long since dead.
In no logical way are those living in and governing Tulsa today responsible for what occurred there 100 years ago.
From the reports cited in that time line there is no way to lay blame to what occurred to any person or group of persons.