I personally count the Banana's massacre, which resulted in an estimated 2000 protesters dead. While the shooting was made by Colombian soldiers instead of US soldiers, it was a direct result of the US Goverment's threat of invading Colombia if the protest done by United Fruit Company workers was not inmediately put to a stop.

EDIT: I think the above comment is a misleading. A better description of the massacre is that it was done to serve US economical interests, aided by US's military pressure (like US officials asking US army forces to send a warship into the zone) and a possible risk of invasion from US into Colombia's mainland. I also think a possibly more accurate number of protestors dead is ~1500. I do stand on the opinion that the massacre was a direct consequence of US Government, simply perpetrated by Colombian soldiers.

Tulsa?

Yeah, plenty of massacres abroad where the US is at least partially responsible for, but basically none at home. Makes me wonder why?

I suspect generally the US doesn't do massacres because they don't need to be afraid of regime change. Their internal propaganda is incredibly strong. We've recently seen how foreign agitation propaganda (Russian online trolls, but also Bin-laden's destabilization strategy) completely changed the political landscape. And even in today's times of extreme crisis we still see not an inkling of any kind of revolution or regime change on the horizon. Since there is no real threat, there is no overreaction to a threat response, unlike in countries that are actively and publicly being targeted for regime change.

Maybe this will change after the 2026 midterms, but I doubt it.

The US is also very proactive and skilled when it comes to infiltrating and dispersing any groups that could become threats to their state power.

And the mainstream media can spin protests however the government wants to - but only as long as there is no massacre.

Basically there are no massacres because protests are harmless and it would be counter productive, unlike protests in other countries.

You fuckers do that mostly overseas and call it "that school was definitely an evil lair full of satan and aids"

Here you have a full wikipedia page of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_by_the_United_States

It is by no means full.

Internally, on your own soil, you do have few famous ones I can name from memory like Tulsa and Orangeburg, and I am too disgusted to even try to google it and find more.

To be fair (so I don't shit on USA only in this message), I can name 1 French massacre from the 60s against Algerian protesters and it was over 200 dead.

I don't think we had any more in the EU, but I'm willing to be schooled.

Which last time?

Two things can be bad at the same time.

Not a lot of domestic mass casualty events in modern times, especially with death tolls above 200. That's true. But there are some truly horrific ones in more turbulent times in US history, particularly when the US was a younger country and cops didn'thave riot dispersal gear/less-lethal ammo. You have to remember that China as it exists today didn't really exist until 1949 at the end of the civil war.

In the US there's lots of historic ones. Many of which happened closer to our civil war (in the following decades) - wounded knee, atlanta race riots, tulsa massacre, etc. Hundreds died in all those and were extremely fucked up.

Then there's more modern ones like the LA race riots in 1992 which killed like 60+ people minimum. Detroit race riots in the 1960s with a death toll of ~50 iirc. Like 40 people died in the BLM protests just a few years ago. Fatalities are largely lower due to cops using less-lethal weaponry.

It's a different historical and tech context. I'd say they aren't directly comparable. But yeah the US gov't hasn't killed 200-500 protesters in a single event within the last 100 years afaik.