[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5418-5419]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE TULSA RACE RIOTS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 17, 2005

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a matter of justice. 
The Tulsa Race Riots remain today a matter unresolved in our national 
conscience. More than 80 years after the occurrence of this horrible 
event, the time has come to bring closure. A March 13th article in the 
New York Daily News sheds light on the Tulsa Race Riots and the current 
effort underway to obtain justice for the victims.
  Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921 was something of an African American success 
story. The city's Black community, known as Greenwood, had developed 
into a prosperous area of shops, hotels, gaming halls and restaurants 
that was known throughout the Southwest. So significant was its 
reputation, that the famous Black leader Booker T. Washington would dub 
Greenwood ``the Black Wall Street.''
  However, the Black community's prosperity was a source of resentment 
among many of city's white residents. Racial tension in the city was 
palpable. This and other factors would eventually manifest themselves, 
with deadly consequences.
  The Tulsa Race Riots began May 31, 1921, when police arrested a black 
youth for allegedly assaulting a white woman, a charge later dismissed. 
A crowd of whites gathered outside the courthouse where the youth was 
being held, calling for his lynching.
  According to a 2001 report commissioned by the State of Oklahoma, 
Black citizens from the Greenwood neighborhood armed themselves and 
went to the courthouse to defend the young man. After an initial period 
of confusion, a shot was fired and a gunfight ensued.
  A white mob then marched to the Greenwood area of the city and began 
to destroy the 40-block neighborhood. Left unobstructed by police and 
Oklahoma National Guard troops, the white mob burned nearly all of 
Greenwood to the ground, leaving nearly 9,000 people homeless. A total 
of 1,256 homes were destroyed, along with ``virtually every other 
structure, including churches, business, schools, even a hospital and a 
library.
  The mob also killed many Black citizens in the process. Officially, 
the death count for the Riots had been put at 38 people, but the 2001 
Oklahoma State report put the figure closer to 300 individuals.
  In the immediate aftermath of the destruction, more than 100 
Greenwood residents unsuccessfully filed lawsuits attempting to recover 
damages. A grand jury convened to determine the cause of the riot and 
actually faulted the city's African-American residents. Subsequently, 
the issue would seemingly disappear for nearly eighty years.
  However, after the publication of the 2001 Oklahoma state report, a 
group of 150 Riot survivors and their descendants, represented by 
Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, sued the state of Oklahoma, the 
city of Tulsa, the city's police department and its police chief.
  Lower courts dismissed the case on the grounds that a two-year 
statute of limitations on the 1921 incident had long since passed. 
Prof. Ogletree has argued that the statute of limitations should not 
have started until 2001, when the state commission appointed to 
investigate the riots completed its report, and revealed the 
culpability of state and local government.
  In March 2004, U.S. District Court Judge James O. Ellison ruled that 
the statute-of limitations should extend to a time when the defendants 
could receive a fair hearing in court, but he also argued that such an 
opportunity was present as early as the 1960s.
  The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in September 
2004, but argued that the case should have been brought during 1980s, 
when a book about the Riots was published--thus giving the plaintiffs 
the evidence they needed in bringing the case.
  Prof. Ogletree has argued that not all the victims knew about the 
book, and that the government still had not acknowledged its 
culpability until the state commission report in 2001. Furthermore, 
until the state commission's report, the official stance of the State 
of Oklahoma was that the Black citizens of Tulsa were responsible for 
the Riots.
  As a result of the recent decision against the plaintiffs by the 10th 
Circuit Court of Appeals, Prof. Ogletree and his legal team are now 
seeking to have the case brought before the United States Supreme 
Court. The Court received a petition brief from Prof. Ogletree and his 
team on March 9th, and a decision is pending.
  Millions of children around our nation recite a daily pledge, an oath 
of allegiance to a nation which promises ``justice for all.'' 
Unfortunately, our country has not always exhibited the national 
virtues descried in that pledge. The victims of the Tulsa Race Riots 
have undoubtedly been denied justice, and now a legal technicality 
threatens to ensure that they will never obtain it. Let us not allow 
this to happen--for the sake of the Tulsa Race Riot victims, and for 
the sake of our nation.

                       Time to Fix Riot's Wrongs

                             By E.R. Shipp

                  [From the Daily News, Mar. 13, 2005]

       To white folks back in the day, it was Niggertown. To black 
     folks during that same time, it was The Black Wall Street. It 
     was the Greenwood section of Tulsa, Okla. And the gap in 
     perception is the frame of the issue that might be decided 
     ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court: reparations.
       Reparations make sense when one can demonstrate that one 
     has suffered a loss. That is not the case for most black folk 
     who, when they hear politicians and college professors say 
     ``reparations,'' are hoping that the government will become 
     their Lotto ticket to wealth.
       If the high court agrees to take on the Tulsa case, laid 
     out in a petition led last

[[Page 5419]]

     week by lawyers--led by Harvard's Charles Ogletree--the 
     justices might see that Tulsa is a whole different matter.
       The 1921 Tulsa race riot began when police arrested a black 
     youth for allegedly assaulting a white woman, a charge later 
     dismissed. A crowd of whites gathered outside the courthouse 
     where the youth was jailed, and there was a rumor that he 
     would be lynched.
       According to the state's 2001 report, men from Greenwood 
     armed themselves and went to the courthouse to defend the 
     youth. A gunfight erupted, and the outnumbered blacks 
     retreated to Greenwood. A white mob followed them and burned 
     the neighborhood.
       A ``white mob ransacked Greenwood, shooting indiscrimately 
     at African-Americans and burning almost every building in the 
     community. Not only did the state and city fail to stop the 
     destruction, but state and local officials participated in 
     the violence and deputized and armed members of the white 
     mob,'' states the petition, filed on behalf of the riot's 
     survivors and their descendants.
       From the get-go, Oklahomans set roadblocks to any kind of 
     recompense for the hundreds of homeowners and businesses 
     devastated during the riot. And then, after a state 
     commission finally concluded in 2001--four years ago!--that 
     more than attention must be paid to what transpired, the 
     courts said to these black folks: Sorry. Too late. You should 
     have filed your claims years ago. Too bad. So sad.
       So, justices of the highest court in the land, rise to the 
     dignity of your titles and do justice in this case. Do 
     justice by 102-year-old Otis Clarke, a Greenwood victim. Do 
     more than pay lip service to the immorality of what 
     transpired. Reparations in the form of money, not just 
     penance, must be paid for this act of domestic terrorism.
       The lower courts said it's too late. But the Supreme Court 
     has the chance to do what's right, and the time for that is 
     now.

     

                          ____________________