So in the issues of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, anti-lynching laws, Voting Rights what position would a centrist have taken that wouldn't have explicitly maintained white supremacy?
Pretty much, yes. What it means depends on context, the topic at hand, and the position of the person regarding the matter:
- Indifference
- Do care, yet reject both extremer view points on left and right
- Studied topic deeply and actually concluded middle ground is the best fit
- Sees status quo as valid
It could mean any of these things. Therefore, it's inaccurate to conclude anything on centrists as if they are a well defined group.
Even the term centrist itself is inaccurate, as very few people would have a fully centrist view on every single topic imaginable.
Coercing somebody with a centrist view into a hard choice under the threat that otherwise you approve the "murdering of children" or some other awful consequence, is plain idiotic. It's a polarization tactic: friend or foe.
I would call the Civil Rights Act of 1965 pretty damn centrist considering how many of today's "progressives" claim it did absolutely nothing to seriously free black people or abolish white supremacy.
It's hard to assume a centrist's opinions on these things. Anecdotally, the centrists I know and talk to regularly are entirely aligned with the left on those issues.
Centrists don't pick the middle of every issue, they pick issues from both sides they agree with.
For example, a centrist may be FOR universal healthcare and AGAINST gun control. Or FOR lower taxes all around and FOR $15 min wage.
Taking each issue as it's own instead of aligning with one party or another on all issues is what a centrist is, to me.
Edit: I'm a self admitted centrist. Feel free to ask questions on my views if you'd like more info.
Centrism doesn't mean indifference regarding any topic, nor does it mean "meet in the middle" on any topic.