By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department’s first-ever review of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre concluded that, while federal prosecution might have been possible at the time, it is no longer legally feasible. The report details the massacre’s devastating impact, revealing the extent of the destruction and the roles played by various local authorities. Despite finding evidence of contemporary federal reports on the massacre, investigators found no record of federal prosecutors ever considering charges. The report’s findings, while unable to lead to criminal prosecution, establish a definitive record of the event, potentially paving the way for future discussions regarding reparations.
Read the original article here
The federal probe into the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre concluded that there’s no avenue for criminal prosecution. This isn’t surprising, given that all those directly involved in the attack are deceased. The passage of a century has rendered any criminal case practically impossible, highlighting how time erodes accountability for historical atrocities. This effectively shields perpetrators, no matter how heinous their crimes, provided they survive long enough.
The absence of criminal avenues doesn’t negate the immense suffering inflicted on the Black community of Tulsa. The scale of destruction, both in terms of lives lost and property damaged, demands acknowledgment and redress. Yet, the likelihood of the state of Oklahoma providing substantial reparations seems remote, considering the current political climate. Federal involvement in financial compensation also appears unlikely.
The focus on a criminal prosecution, while understandable in its pursuit of justice, arguably obscures the core issue: the ongoing legacy of the massacre. While apologies and remembrance days hold symbolic importance, they lack the tangible impact of financial compensation. The fact that two survivors, now in their 100s, received no compensation for the city’s role in the destruction of their neighborhood and the massacre highlights this inadequacy.
The argument for compensation isn’t merely about the past; it’s about rectifying present-day inequalities. The massacre resulted in the loss of generational wealth and the displacement of families. The fact that the federal report acknowledges no criminal pathway emphasizes how easy it is to evade responsibility by waiting long enough. The absence of accountability fosters a chilling precedent, suggesting that any atrocity, no matter how egregious, becomes effectively unpunishable with enough time.
The lack of financial accountability contrasts sharply with other instances of government compensation for historical injustices. The US government has offered reparations for the Japanese American internment camps and even compensated slave owners for “loss of property,” yet the victims of domestic terrorism in Tulsa are left without similar redress. This blatant double standard fuels resentment and underscores the systemic racism that continues to plague the nation.
The cost of this investigation, which yielded a conclusion many predicted from the outset, raises concerns about resource allocation. Millions of dollars were spent on a probe that ultimately produced no criminal outcomes. This could have been used for more productive purposes, such as addressing pressing societal needs like homelessness. The financial resources of the city of Tulsa, with a budget exceeding one billion dollars, could arguably contribute to fairer reparations for the descendants of the victims.
The federal report’s reliance on existing evidence without new verification is also disheartening. The fact that the last known survivors are still alive (at ages 109 and 110) makes it even more urgent to address compensation and land restitution. The descendants of the victims deserve recognition of their suffering and a measure of restorative justice, even if criminal prosecution isn’t feasible. This is a matter of equity, not just legal technicalities.
Ultimately, the federal probe’s finding of “no avenue” for criminal prosecution points to a deeper systemic failure. It highlights the ease with which historical atrocities can be swept under the rug if sufficient time passes. The focus should shift from the unattainable goal of criminal prosecution to the tangible need for financial compensation, land restitution, and a genuine reckoning with the lasting legacy of the Tulsa Race Massacre. The real justice lies in acknowledging the ongoing harm and taking concrete steps towards redress.