Is a wedding at a 'plantation' bad form? or romantic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to see how people's sensibilities are easily affected by fads over time.

How many people happily get married in religious structures and attend religious weddings despite so many atrocities committed in the name of organized religions (all of them) over human history? Or go to destination weddings in chateaus and castles owned by nobles who oppressed their peasants and serfs? Or on lands where the original Native American population was driven off? Or even in robber baron mansions built from tobacco or alcohol fortunes?

Slavery in the US is an ugly and unpleasant chapter of American history but it was far from unique in the annals of history. I once heard someone say that the past has a vote, but not a veto, on our decisions. If you let slavery veto your decisions today, it means you're still letting slavery affect your decision making process, which means it's still triumphing over us.

Real progress is having a diverse wedding on a former plantation. Because that is a sign of how times have changed and how we as a society have moved forward. Vetoing a wedding on a former plantation (where slavery was banned 150 years ago) means we're still letting the perversity of past injustices triumph over us. After all, wouldn't it be symbolic in its own way for a diverse group of wedding guests to happily dance and be merry on the floors built by a slave master?

My opinion, of course. Just do what makes you happy.

So you would have your wedding on the grounds of the concentration camp? To show how far we have come? As long as the building was pretty, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married 20 years ago, which is almost a generation ago. My DH and i got married in a church and had our reception at Gunston Hall Plantation (George Mason's home.) I wanted a unique location. Also, I majored in History in college and liked the idea of celebrating my marriage in a historic, Virginia location. Back then, most of my friends were having receptions in hotel ballrooms and I wanted something different. The reception was not held in the home but in their museum, which is a modern building. We did take photos outside of his house and I have one of us standing in front of the house displayed prominently in my living room. The other aspect I really liked about the location is all of my guests received a guided tour of the house while we were taking photos. The thought of Mason owning slaves never entered my mind. I'm not sure if I would choose the same location today but he is a very prominent figure in our history.

Honestly, if you're white, you shouldn't be okay with this. It's white privilege to be able to pick and choose when we think about race and when we put it out of our mind, and this is all the more significant when we are talking about a building specifically constructed to profit off of the horrors of slavery. It's natural but something to be mindful about it.

This history major chose it specifically because it had historical value and didn't think about the conditions of the majority of residents there during the historical period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the issue. It's history.

Do you also not tour houses like Mount Vernon?

Mount Vernon is a museum. And they talk a lot about slavery there. Similarly, former concentration camps are now essentially museums.

Not all museums are appropriate for weddings.

Barely, they barely mention slavery at Mt. Vernon. In fact, they don't want to talk about it at all, if they had their way, the older generation there. How often do you hear that George dearest had over 150 slaves in a regular tour?

I don't know if we had a regular tour, but when I chaperoned my 1st grader's field trip there, they absolutely said that Washington had over 150 slaves who did the work to make the plantation run.

Martha Custis’s brought her slaves to Mount Vernon when she married George. He freed his slaves; she did not.
When Ulysses Grant married Julia, she brought her St Louis slaves to the marriage. Grant made her free then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m personally ok with it but you have to decide how you feel.

We are all living on land we violently took from Native Americans and we don’t let that bother us enough not to do it.

This is the truest statement in this entire thread. If you complain about plantations, you better complain about every inch of soil you step on day to day. Cause guess what, you’re just as guilty.

This is crap. No one group has special rights to a land or especially a continent. The history of the world has been peoples of all colors conquering each other and the land that goes with them. The people living in the Americas were no more deserving of its possession than the mostly peasants from Europe who took it. No guilt for us.

As we observe the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, you make a good point, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to see how people's sensibilities are easily affected by fads over time.

How many people happily get married in religious structures and attend religious weddings despite so many atrocities committed in the name of organized religions (all of them) over human history? Or go to destination weddings in chateaus and castles owned by nobles who oppressed their peasants and serfs? Or on lands where the original Native American population was driven off? Or even in robber baron mansions built from tobacco or alcohol fortunes?

Slavery in the US is an ugly and unpleasant chapter of American history but it was far from unique in the annals of history. I once heard someone say that the past has a vote, but not a veto, on our decisions. If you let slavery veto your decisions today, it means you're still letting slavery affect your decision making process, which means it's still triumphing over us.

Real progress is having a diverse wedding on a former plantation. Because that is a sign of how times have changed and how we as a society have moved forward. Vetoing a wedding on a former plantation (where slavery was banned 150 years ago) means we're still letting the perversity of past injustices triumph over us. After all, wouldn't it be symbolic in its own way for a diverse group of wedding guests to happily dance and be merry on the floors built by a slave master?

My opinion, of course. Just do what makes you happy.

So you would have your wedding on the grounds of the concentration camp? To show how far we have come? As long as the building was pretty, of course.

Ok so according to your logic, we should close every road where there is a fatality. Tear down every house where there was a murder. Close every forest where someone died in an accident or suicide and basically never be happy again. You'll hate this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLNa-ocdryY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to see how people's sensibilities are easily affected by fads over time.

How many people happily get married in religious structures and attend religious weddings despite so many atrocities committed in the name of organized religions (all of them) over human history? Or go to destination weddings in chateaus and castles owned by nobles who oppressed their peasants and serfs? Or on lands where the original Native American population was driven off? Or even in robber baron mansions built from tobacco or alcohol fortunes?

Slavery in the US is an ugly and unpleasant chapter of American history but it was far from unique in the annals of history. I once heard someone say that the past has a vote, but not a veto, on our decisions. If you let slavery veto your decisions today, it means you're still letting slavery affect your decision making process, which means it's still triumphing over us.

Real progress is having a diverse wedding on a former plantation. Because that is a sign of how times have changed and how we as a society have moved forward. Vetoing a wedding on a former plantation (where slavery was banned 150 years ago) means we're still letting the perversity of past injustices triumph over us. After all, wouldn't it be symbolic in its own way for a diverse group of wedding guests to happily dance and be merry on the floors built by a slave master?

My opinion, of course. Just do what makes you happy.

So you would have your wedding on the grounds of the concentration camp? To show how far we have come? As long as the building was pretty, of course.

Is it ivy covered?
Great space for a dance floor? I mean, I can work with anything.

[Anonymous]

Probably it depends on what the “plantation” is preserved and celebrated for. If it’s a “historic” site then the history is relevant.

The word is a big issue - a smart venue would just change to “farm” or “estate” or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to see how people's sensibilities are easily affected by fads over time.

How many people happily get married in religious structures and attend religious weddings despite so many atrocities committed in the name of organized religions (all of them) over human history? Or go to destination weddings in chateaus and castles owned by nobles who oppressed their peasants and serfs? Or on lands where the original Native American population was driven off? Or even in robber baron mansions built from tobacco or alcohol fortunes?

Slavery in the US is an ugly and unpleasant chapter of American history but it was far from unique in the annals of history. I once heard someone say that the past has a vote, but not a veto, on our decisions. If you let slavery veto your decisions today, it means you're still letting slavery affect your decision making process, which means it's still triumphing over us.

Real progress is having a diverse wedding on a former plantation. Because that is a sign of how times have changed and how we as a society have moved forward. Vetoing a wedding on a former plantation (where slavery was banned 150 years ago) means we're still letting the perversity of past injustices triumph over us. After all, wouldn't it be symbolic in its own way for a diverse group of wedding guests to happily dance and be merry on the floors built by a slave master?

My opinion, of course. Just do what makes you happy.

So you would have your wedding on the grounds of the concentration camp? To show how far we have come? As long as the building was pretty, of course.

Ok so according to your logic, we should close every road where there is a fatality. Tear down every house where there was a murder. Close every forest where someone died in an accident or suicide and basically never be happy again. You'll hate this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLNa-ocdryY

No one said close the plantation/museum. People said they wouldn't want their weddings there. Do you see a difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married 20 years ago, which is almost a generation ago. My DH and i got married in a church and had our reception at Gunston Hall Plantation (George Mason's home.) I wanted a unique location. Also, I majored in History in college and liked the idea of celebrating my marriage in a historic, Virginia location. Back then, most of my friends were having receptions in hotel ballrooms and I wanted something different. The reception was not held in the home but in their museum, which is a modern building. We did take photos outside of his house and I have one of us standing in front of the house displayed prominently in my living room. The other aspect I really liked about the location is all of my guests received a guided tour of the house while we were taking photos. The thought of Mason owning slaves never entered my mind. I'm not sure if I would choose the same location today but he is a very prominent figure in our history.

Honestly, if you're white, you shouldn't be okay with this. It's white privilege to be able to pick and choose when we think about race and when we put it out of our mind, and this is all the more significant when we are talking about a building specifically constructed to profit off of the horrors of slavery. It's natural but something to be mindful about it.

Oh, get over yourself. How dare you tell someone else what they need to be "mindful" of. Who died and put you in charge?

I dare because I don't mind telling the truth, and to be honest telling somebody they need to be mindful of something is pretty tame. They should be able to handle it.

+1

I'm always trying to be more mindful of other perspectives. It's a constant process and a positive one
--person who was left in charge after George Mason died.

Well, you're failing miserably at the moment. Because anyone who is "trying to be more mindful of other perspectives" would not be so set in her ways on this position, now would she?

PP, somebody not sharing your racist or willfully ignorant views isn’t “set in their ways”. Understanding the troubled history of our country and specific elements of that makes her a better person who will actually make the world a better place. Unlike regressive people like you who are so terrified of growth or change that they hold onto views that don’t serve anyone, even themselves.

You have no idea who I am or what my views are. Of course, that doesn't stop you from judging and presuming that you have the moral authority to lecture others. THAT is what people find so distasteful about you, PP. I'm telling you because none of your friends will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until this was brought up I would have thought it a nice venue, and upon reflection, any older home or restaurant or country club is guilty until proven innocent so unless it was built after 2010 or so I would nix having an event in one for fear that some racially unacceptable behavior had taken place in it, I mean just think about it , would you want to have your wedding in a country club where, God forbid, an off color joke was told? And it was found out and brought up?
Makes you think?

It makes me think you are clueless. And it makes me think you find a former slave plantation a lovely place to have a wedding.

Because slavery = offcolor joke? That’s the analogy you (first pp) are going with? Really?

Let us all know where the outrage ends, in your mind is it slavery and do you think only blacks were slaves? In someone else's mind is it objectifying the female body or hating on a belief different than your own? Every culture has a story of depravity cast upon them by others simply for their descent, ask them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m personally ok with it but you have to decide how you feel.

We are all living on land we violently took from Native Americans and we don’t let that bother us enough not to do it.

This is the truest statement in this entire thread. If you complain about plantations, you better complain about every inch of soil you step on day to day. Cause guess what, you’re just as guilty.

This is crap. No one group has special rights to a land or especially a continent. The history of the world has been peoples of all colors conquering each other and the land that goes with them. The people living in the Americas were no more deserving of its possession than the mostly peasants from Europe who took it. No guilt for us.

+1.

The US as a country was born with the Constitution. Nothing that happened before is very relevant to our country as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m personally ok with it but you have to decide how you feel.

We are all living on land we violently took from Native Americans and we don’t let that bother us enough not to do it.

This is the truest statement in this entire thread. If you complain about plantations, you better complain about every inch of soil you step on day to day. Cause guess what, you’re just as guilty.

This is crap. No one group has special rights to a land or especially a continent. The history of the world has been peoples of all colors conquering each other and the land that goes with them. The people living in the Americas were no more deserving of its possession than the mostly peasants from Europe who took it. No guilt for us.

+1.

The US as a country was born with the Constitution. Nothing that happened before is very relevant to our country as such.

What about stuff that happened after?

In general, we're not a very backward-looking country, but you seem to have written slavery out entirely. Not very relevant, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m personally ok with it but you have to decide how you feel.

We are all living on land we violently took from Native Americans and we don’t let that bother us enough not to do it.

This is the truest statement in this entire thread. If you complain about plantations, you better complain about every inch of soil you step on day to day. Cause guess what, you’re just as guilty.

This is crap. No one group has special rights to a land or especially a continent. The history of the world has been peoples of all colors conquering each other and the land that goes with them. The people living in the Americas were no more deserving of its possession than the mostly peasants from Europe who took it. No guilt for us.

+1.

The US as a country was born with the Constitution. Nothing that happened before is very relevant to our country as such.

So then I guess we should give back the land we took after the constitution as part of manifest destiny? That only leaves the 13 original colonies.

[Anonymous]

You do know that people used to use cemeteries as public parks. The world is for the living.

"They were quite important spaces for recreation as well. Keep in mind, the great rural cemeteries were built at a time when there weren't public parks, or art museums, or botanical gardens in American cities. You suddenly had large pieces of ground, filled with beautiful sculptures and horticultural art. People flocked to cemeteries for picnics, for hunting and shooting and carriage racing. These places became so popular that not only were guidebooks issued to guide visitors, but also all kinds of rules were posted."

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/our-first-public-parks-the-forgotten-history-of-cemeteries/71818/

[Anonymous]

Why not? Especially if it's your ancestral home.