That makes sense. For some reason though I still sense a hint of desire for retribution in the original comment

I think this is an uncharitable interpretation.

My interpretation is it would be less likely to happen near a wealthy neighborhood compared to a poor neighborhood. Why talk about race if its not about race?

Because it is about race.

Please read the article I linked in another reply to you.

My neighborhood was prosperous when it was systematically stolen from the black people who built it. They literally razed a thriving business district. And then the land sat empty for decades, only in the end to be sold to property developers.

They used eminent domain to steal people's homes and businesses in a way that was blatantly criminal, but the victims had no recourse given the courts and entire rest of the political structure was complicit in the actions.

And variations of this story played out everywhere across America.

So yes, the fact that a neighborhood is historically black is relevant, because it shows the events of today are part of a continued arc of injustice.

The correlation is extremely strong, especially in places like Memphis. And nobody said this particular neighborhood is poor.

Who said they were poor?

Tulsa used to have a rich Black neighborhood.

it’s amazing to me how few people know what happened there.

It makes more sense to word it like this when you take into consideration historical trends, like drowned towns for lakes or dams, highway system along redline, thriving neighbourhoods erased to create parks… often preceded by violence and little to no compensation.

Isn’t the Memphis city admin mainly composed of blacks?