“Perry didn’t own the land”
I’ve seen that argument and it’s really weak. So because he didn’t actually own the land, it was OK to drive past a sign on a rock that someone had painted “Niggerhead” on?
Short anecdote: as a military family, my own family traveled a lot through the south in the early `60s. This was before interstate highways and franchises.
We were very hungry late one afternoon and stopped at some small restaurant off a two lane road. My father saw something on the door and shooed us all back the car.
Later I asked him what happened and he said the sign said `Private Club, We Reserve the Right etc. etc.’ and we weren’t eating there.
He was the only cadet in his class willing to share his tent with one of the first black cadets at old Oklahoma A&M, and caught some flak for it. He was also one of the few to get a regular Army commission.
Back on topic, we weren’t renting that restaurant. He just refused to even eat in a place that denied service to his fellow troopers.
If Perry’s father painted over the sign before agreeing to rent the place, good on him but that’s not the way I read it, especially when their actions are excused by, “Well, they were just renting.”
And this about Perry. Leave Cain out of it. All you Perriers are the ones making something out of it.
We’ll leave Cain out of it when he stops commenting on something he has no facts on.