I can’t really find an example right now, but I’ve seen conservative tellings of the civil rights era that were along the lines of the following:

“Restaurant owners and other business owners in the southern states wanted to be able to accept black patrons (because they were businessmen after all, and the only color they cared about was green), but because of Democrat Big Government, they weren’t allowed to”

The way I recall it is that this premise was then used in support of an equivalency between Jim Crow laws and Civil Rights laws, i.e. “First they were prohibited from taking customers that they wanted, and now they’re being forced to take all customers, even ones that they don’t want”.

I’m sure this is bullshit, but honestly I don’t know enough about that part of American history to refute it, and it kind of does make intuitive sense that a restaurant owner would want as many patrons as possible. So can one of you more knowledgeable folks here debunk it?

  • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    “Most people going to say the heart of the matter was the rights of black people,” he says. “The real heart of the matter was, now wait a minute, the federal government can’t come in and tell us what to do. We’re a local business.”

    These people got treated with kid gloves and still complained when the government would have been entirely justified in :pit:ing them

    • RamrodBaguette [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Washington should have sent tanks down south and purged the rot, as should have been done since 1866.

      But that would only happen in a weird alternate universe where the US federal government passed the CRA out of principle, not just because Jim Crow was increasingly becoming a liability.