One of 5 histories I've read on this tragedy... but the angriest. Brophy fails to mediate events without inserting a rather seething displeasure of whites, tainting the book as a whole. In addition, the book is compiled from a large variety of sources, and though information-copious, it is not well-ordered. The paragraphs ramble on somewhat, and I found myself oscillating between pages to compare competing information. A.J. Smitherman's poetry is misplaced, and took away from what could have been a sharper narrative. In fact, you don't get to the crux of the event until 10 pages into Chapter 4 :
"...white Tulsa and black Tulsa could not have been farther apart in their understandings of what exactly had broken down. White Tulsa and the grand jury believed that the 'social order' had collapsed and that blacks had staged an uprising.... Whites saw the primary duty of law in the riot's wake as the restoration of order. From black Tulsa's point of view, however, the breakdown was not in the social order, but in the law itself, which had failed to protect Greenwood against violence. Even worse, the government had authorized harm to Greenwood residents and property."
And that's still not entirely what happened :)
Here it is :
1. Whites took up arms because they thought blacks would usurp Tulsa. A "negro uprising" is a familiar theme amongst whites at that time.
2. Blacks took up arms to rescue a jailed black youth, anticipating a mob lynching him. Lynchings were all-too common in the early 1900s, especially at poorly staffed precincts. Interestingly, whites could also be victims, especially if they were socialists or Catholics.
3. A mob formed only after reading a spicy newspaper op-ed headlining the jailed youth. In other words, by all historical accounts, the Tulsa Race Riot was actually triggered by a lone tabloid.
All in all, a book far too militant to sound intelligent.
.