4 ms·
But they weren't protesting the proprietors of those businesses for complying with the law. They were protesting the law itself.
by philwelch 5y ago
But they weren't protesting the proprietors of those businesses for complying with the law. They were protesting the law itself.
- woodruffw 5y ago> But they weren't protesting the proprietors of those businesses for complying with the law. Yes, they were. The Greensboro sit-ins began at Woolworth stores because they had explicit policies that went above and beyond those required by Jim Crow laws. They even sent a letter to Woolworth’s, not the state[1]. Edit: And, you’ll note: the Greensboro sit-ins didn’t provoke asymmetric police retaliation. What the students did wasn’t even illegal, it was merely against Woolworth’s store policies. [1]: https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/greensboro-nc-students-sit-us-civil-rights-1960 https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/greensboro-nc-stud...