347
DoJ releases its Tulsa race massacre report over 100 years after initial review
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
347 points (99.4% liked)
News
36618 readers
2158 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You: Waiting 100 years is the right thing.
Me: DOJ is a piece of shit.
The people who released it now are not the same people who decided not to release it 100 yrs ago. DOJ is not the same entity all the time, it changes with the people who work there. The people who work there now could have decided against releasing it, just like their predecessors. They didn't. The fact it was not released back then is frustrating, but you cannot hold today's DOJ accountable for that.
Releasing this was the right thing to do.
Releasing it 99 years ago was the right thing to do. Releasing it 98 years ago was the next best thing to do. Releasing it now is just shameful.
Since we can't go back in time, there were only two options today: Release it or don't release it. This reads like you think they shouldn't have released it.
Can you point out anywhere that would lead a reasonable person to believe that anyone on this thread says that it shouldn't have been released?
No because he’s just a troll.
2 comments earlier: "Releasing it now is just shameful." - sounds pretty much like the commenter would not be outraged if it was not released at all.
I think the rational approach would be to express outrage for every single year when it was NOT released and to celebrate that this year, finally it is out. The victims deserve the public acknowledgement of what really happened. This is a positive thing and it's worth it even after a 100 years.
Did they have the option to release it last year? I'm pretty sure they did. How about the year before? How about all the years before that?
And you think they should be thanked or praised for finally doing what should have been done years ago? The reasonable response to that should be, "it's about fucking time."
This isn't some shit about who killed Kennedy that will fuel more conspiracy theories, this is direct information about an event where up to 300 people were killed, up to 800 people were injured (we will never know specifically because information like this was never released to the public), and the most successful black neighborhood in the U.S. was destroyed by racist cops and citizens including someone dropping fucking bombs from an airplane.
No, sorry, this is not something to give them any credit for whatsoever. It's about fucking time.
Once upon a time. But, no, they don't deserve any credit now.
The 100 year delay objectively destroyed any meaningful benefit of the release.
So, hard disagree from me. This was NOT the right thing to do. It literally makes no difference that it's been released.
Yes. Also, the DOJ is shit. Give it ten days…