Yet, this romanticized version of industrialization excludes a deeper look into textile factories, many of which were occupied under racist regimes in the Jim Crow South. These laws were put into place “to prevent movement of black laborers and increases in their wages” (Roback 1161). Even after Jim Crow was abolished, up until the 1970’s and 80’s people of color struggled to obtain jobs above textile laborers, or the most gruesome, laborious, and taxing jobs in the factory. Additionally, they were paid less than white workers, and found themselves stuck in these roles, unable to obtain skilled positions. An element that made textile mills in the South fall into racist and harmful modes of operation was the fact that many white workers felt like they had to compete against people of color for jobs. After the depression, “the labor market of this time period [was] essentially competitive” which resulted in the exploitation of black people (Roback 1162). Because of mills paternalistic modes of operation, mill communities sprung up, further distancing whites from blacks, and further pushing against equality in the workplace. Within these mill villages, “white workers were given access to room, board, and a number of amenities” (Musquiz). They spatially and socially boxed themselves out from interacting with people of color, living within the confines of the mill villages, separating themselves from the changing world around them. Even after Jim Crow laws were abolished, racism and harmful modes of thinking and operating did not just dissipate. Black people, especially black women, struggled to possess higher level jobs in mills, up until the late 70’s and 80’s. In the case of Lea v. Cone Mills in 1969, it was charged that the Eno plant of the Cones Mills Cooperation was using unlawful hiring techniques, and hiring based on race and gender. This case not only dealt with race, as the plaintiffs were black, but also dealt with the dual complexity of gender, as the three plaintiffs were also all women. Facing dual oppressions, or as Kimberlé Crinshaw coined an intersection of oppressions, Shirley Lea, Romona Pinnix, and Annie Tinnin all filed the suit against Cone Mills after they faced unlawful hiring practices. The court stated that the hiring practices of the Eno plant “constitute a pattern and practice of discrimination within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (Lea v. Cone Mills). After the long fought battles to obtain these positions, mills started closing and companies started outsourcing internationally, resulting in stateside mills losing jobs and brands. There was no longer the need for these mills, considering companies could go around national labor laws by sourcing internationally. Sadly, when justice was finally met, it didn’t matter anymore. The jobs were gone, mills closed, and denim was now being sourced in cheaper, more corrupt ways. This leads to the dichotomy that is denim. We often find ourselves on the hunt for vintage Levi’s and Wranglers made from the same mills where women and people of color were discriminated against, shoved into the worst jobs possible, and when they finally did obtain freedoms and rights, it was all over. On the other hand, most of the denim bought today is made by the tired hands of sweatshop workers, living on unfair wages and working in horrifying spaces. This leads us to question what “heritage” denim even means, and what American ideals and customs we are romanticizing.