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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Slavery is as old as time. Slavery was found in just about every civilization and society and culture globally. The ancient civilizations were built upon the backs of slavery.

Do you stare at the pyramids and demand that they should be demolished because god knows how many thousands of slaves died in constructing the pyramids? Or the Roman forum (or what's left of it?). Or the Mayan pyramids? Or the Great Wall of China?

The peculiarity of American slavery, which, by the context of slavery historically, was not quite as bad as it could have been, was that it was race based and it violated the notion of free-will and self-determination that the US had enshrined as a principle founding concept for our country. Historically, the idea that a man's free-will and self determination needed to be respected is actually a very recent concept. Prior to the 1800s it was not something practiced or believed in by most cultures, which is why the crime of slavery was not seen as such in the past. That slavery was racially based was also a relatively new concept, in the ancient world slavery was multicultural and of course in other cultures slaves were of the same race as their masters. It seems to me that the sheer anger towards the existence of slavery in America's past has less to do with that it was slavery, per se, but that it was a racially based institution.

It's also interesting how we've swung from the happy clappy slaves tripe of the 1930s movies to Django perspective of today where it's akin to the holocaust. The reality is that American slavery was was a much more muddled institution somewhere in between the two. I've read the fascinating accounts of slave survivors in the LOC and for every ex-slave who talked of a cruel master who beat his slaves, there's another one who talks of a kind and benevolent master. American slaves were extremely expensive, the average white American could never afford one. The typical slaveowner was a farmer who owned 2-3 slaves to help out on his farm and who worked alongside the white family in the fields and at the endless chores. The typical slave was owned on a plantation but the typical plantation was a smallish affair with 2-3 dozen slaves. Only a tiny minority of planters had 100+ slaves like Washington. And while we can stare at the few surviving slave cabins and be appalled by living in shacks with dirt floors, but in 1860 so did a lot of poor whites....

What's also fascinating is how many southerners did not see the institution as immoral. At all. Many thought they were being benevolent and responsible. Yes, I know, I know. It's perverse to think of slavery as such these days, but that was the perspective back then. I've struggled to understand the mindset myself but I am coming from the 21st century. And the North was only marginally better, it may not have approved of slavery but it also did not see African Americans as equals as white. The state of New York was firmly abolitionist but in the 1860 election, while voting for Lincoln, the state also rejected, by a thumping majority, granting the right to vote to all free blacks.

Complex world. Complex history.

Why'd you even take the time to type out this BS? Sounds like you were educated using Texas history books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP. Not analogous. In all your examples, the negative events were purely happenstance. In the case of plantations, their express purpose was forcing human beings to toil as slaves for the enrichment of the plantation owners.

Ok so just the pyramids, the great wall, the colosseum, the white house, the Tower of London, most of the roads in Europe - also no smiling at Machu Picchu because that empire conquered most of South America and probably not in a nice way. Also Tiananmen Square (some pretty oppressive stuff went down there too.) Can you make a list of the places that cannot be enjoyed because of how they were created just so everyone knows.

DP, but we're not talking about not visiting historical sites. We're talking about holding a wedding at a plantation. That you keep arguing about this issue and keep refusing to see how unconscionable it is really speaks volumes.

PEOPLE DO GET MARRIED AT THESE PLACES ALL THE TIME and no one bats an eye. The point is that it is intellectually inconsistent for someone to think it is ok to get married on the Great Wall of China but not a plantation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Slavery is as old as time. Slavery was found in just about every civilization and society and culture globally. The ancient civilizations were built upon the backs of slavery.

Do you stare at the pyramids and demand that they should be demolished because god knows how many thousands of slaves died in constructing the pyramids? Or the Roman forum (or what's left of it?). Or the Mayan pyramids? Or the Great Wall of China?

The peculiarity of American slavery, which, by the context of slavery historically, was not quite as bad as it could have been, was that it was race based and it violated the notion of free-will and self-determination that the US had enshrined as a principle founding concept for our country. Historically, the idea that a man's free-will and self determination needed to be respected is actually a very recent concept. Prior to the 1800s it was not something practiced or believed in by most cultures, which is why the crime of slavery was not seen as such in the past. That slavery was racially based was also a relatively new concept, in the ancient world slavery was multicultural and of course in other cultures slaves were of the same race as their masters. It seems to me that the sheer anger towards the existence of slavery in America's past has less to do with that it was slavery, per se, but that it was a racially based institution.

It's also interesting how we've swung from the happy clappy slaves tripe of the 1930s movies to Django perspective of today where it's akin to the holocaust. The reality is that American slavery was was a much more muddled institution somewhere in between the two. I've read the fascinating accounts of slave survivors in the LOC and for every ex-slave who talked of a cruel master who beat his slaves, there's another one who talks of a kind and benevolent master. American slaves were extremely expensive, the average white American could never afford one. The typical slaveowner was a farmer who owned 2-3 slaves to help out on his farm and who worked alongside the white family in the fields and at the endless chores. The typical slave was owned on a plantation but the typical plantation was a smallish affair with 2-3 dozen slaves. Only a tiny minority of planters had 100+ slaves like Washington. And while we can stare at the few surviving slave cabins and be appalled by living in shacks with dirt floors, but in 1860 so did a lot of poor whites....

What's also fascinating is how many southerners did not see the institution as immoral. At all. Many thought they were being benevolent and responsible. Yes, I know, I know. It's perverse to think of slavery as such these days, but that was the perspective back then. I've struggled to understand the mindset myself but I am coming from the 21st century. And the North was only marginally better, it may not have approved of slavery but it also did not see African Americans as equals as white. The state of New York was firmly abolitionist but in the 1860 election, while voting for Lincoln, the state also rejected, by a thumping majority, granting the right to vote to all free blacks.

Complex world. Complex history.

Why'd you even take the time to type out this BS? Sounds like you were educated using Texas history books.

why do you think this is BS just because it isn"t what you want to believe? where are you getting your information?

[Anonymous]

I went to a wedding at mount Vernon that was lovely. I think it’s fine, but it would be extremely tacky to use that word on the invitation, website, etc., even more so to brag about how ‘my wedding is on a PLANTATION!’ It’s a pretty outdoor venue. Just because someone is getting married there doesn’t mean they condone slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. Not analogous. In all your examples, the negative events were purely happenstance. In the case of plantations, their express purpose was forcing human beings to toil as slaves for the enrichment of the plantation owners.

Which, at the time, was perfectly legal, and had been for centuries...

What does legality have to do with it? It's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history, and I wouldn't want to give the appearance of celebrating that "bygone era." People that do make themselves look either clueless or racist.

At the time, slavery was considered neither illegal nor immoral. The claim that "it's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history," is entirely retroactive. You are projecting today's values back on past centuries where they have no relevance or application. The idea that we, today, should feel guilty for things we did not do, and for which the actual perpetrators neither did nor should (remember: neither illegal nor immoral) feel any guilt, is absurd and insane.

There is no "stain" on me or on 2019 America from antebellum slavery. Nobody alive today had anything to do with it, or suffered from it.

A) you still benefit from it and B)you trot out the same ridiculous contextual morality every time somebody mentions something that God knows and
anybody else knows Is wrong, WAS wrong, WILL ALWAYS be wrong.
You need Jesus, a conscience, and a better group of friends than those fools you hang around with on Stormfront , not necessarily in that order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. Not analogous. In all your examples, the negative events were purely happenstance. In the case of plantations, their express purpose was forcing human beings to toil as slaves for the enrichment of the plantation owners.

Which, at the time, was perfectly legal, and had been for centuries...

What does legality have to do with it? It's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history, and I wouldn't want to give the appearance of celebrating that "bygone era." People that do make themselves look either clueless or racist.

At the time, slavery was considered neither illegal nor immoral. The claim that "it's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history," is entirely retroactive. You are projecting today's values back on past centuries where they have no relevance or application. The idea that we, today, should feel guilty for things we did not do, and for which the actual perpetrators neither did nor should (remember: neither illegal nor immoral) feel any guilt, is absurd and insane.

There is no "stain" on me or on 2019 America from antebellum slavery. Nobody alive today had anything to do with it, or suffered from it.

Good lord, this is hardly worth engaging with, but: As white folks, we do bear a stain. It's called responsibility for the past. That's different from personal guilt.

Responsibility for the past includes, at a bare minimum, not using the places of other people's suffering as a backdrop for your tee-hee Insta-wedding.

Our interpretation of of our responsibility for the past differs.

I think it's our basic sense of decency that differs.

Did our first black President display basic decency when he promised to prioritize getting immigration reform done and instead he deported 4 million immigrants, the vast majority of who had zero criminal records and many of whom had American-born children?

It is so cute when folks talk about a horrible thing that happened 200 years ago while ignoring another that just took place and continues to this day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. Not analogous. In all your examples, the negative events were purely happenstance. In the case of plantations, their express purpose was forcing human beings to toil as slaves for the enrichment of the plantation owners.

Which, at the time, was perfectly legal, and had been for centuries...

What does legality have to do with it? It's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history, and I wouldn't want to give the appearance of celebrating that "bygone era." People that do make themselves look either clueless or racist.

At the time, slavery was considered neither illegal nor immoral. The claim that "it's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history," is entirely retroactive. You are projecting today's values back on past centuries where they have no relevance or application. The idea that we, today, should feel guilty for things we did not do, and for which the actual perpetrators neither did nor should (remember: neither illegal nor immoral) feel any guilt, is absurd and insane.

There is no "stain" on me or on 2019 America from antebellum slavery. Nobody alive today had anything to do with it, or suffered from it.

Says, you I guess you don’t know the affects that slavery had on generations of African Americans in this country, do do you know the affects of being a nonwhite person in this country. Get over it? Really? My Mom who is not black was not allowed in white stores in Texas because of Jim Crow. My husband’s family Holocaust survivors, I guess his grandmother should get over it.

Must be nice to not be affected by racism. Talk about white privileged.
A) you still benefit from it and B)you trot out the same ridiculous contextual morality every time somebody mentions something that God knows and
anybody else knows Is wrong, WAS wrong, WILL ALWAYS be wrong.
You need Jesus, a conscience, and a better group of friends than those fools you hang around with on Stormfront , not necessarily in that order.

[Anonymous]

I just think it's bad mojo and would be scared I'd pick up an angry haint. Not the kind of three-way I'd want on my wedding night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP. Not analogous. In all your examples, the negative events were purely happenstance. In the case of plantations, their express purpose was forcing human beings to toil as slaves for the enrichment of the plantation owners.

Which, at the time, was perfectly legal, and had been for centuries...

What does legality have to do with it? It's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history, and I wouldn't want to give the appearance of celebrating that "bygone era." People that do make themselves look either clueless or racist.

At the time, slavery was considered neither illegal nor immoral. The claim that "it's a huge, immoral stain on our country's history," is entirely retroactive. You are projecting today's values back on past centuries where they have no relevance or application. The idea that we, today, should feel guilty for things we did not do, and for which the actual perpetrators neither did nor should (remember: neither illegal nor immoral) feel any guilt, is absurd and insane.

There is no "stain" on me or on 2019 America from antebellum slavery. Nobody alive today had anything to do with it, or suffered from it.

Good lord, this is hardly worth engaging with, but: As white folks, we do bear a stain. It's called responsibility for the past. That's different from personal guilt.

Responsibility for the past includes, at a bare minimum, not using the places of other people's suffering as a backdrop for your tee-hee Insta-wedding.

Our interpretation of of our responsibility for the past differs.

I think it's our basic sense of decency that differs.

Did our first black President display basic decency when he promised to prioritize getting immigration reform done and instead he deported 4 million immigrants, the vast majority of who had zero criminal records and many of whom had American-born children?

It is so cute when folks talk about a horrible thing that happened 200 years ago while ignoring another that just took place and continues to this day.

Nice whataboutism there, but try to stay on topic or take it to Politics.

[Anonymous]

Ok.
Let’s quit talking about pretend wedding venues.
No one is getting married at Tara, in a hoop skirt, being waited on by white clad African American servers.
That’s just not a thing, and people here are really being silly and disingenuous.
Would you get married at Woodlawn estate?
Would you attend a wedding there?

Because I suspect at least 50% of DCUM that was planning a big budget outdoor wedding, would consider it.
98% would attend a wedding there, and not even give it a second thought.
Why would you? Woodlawn estate is beautiful, and it has well manicured grounds. I think they have a tent on site, so you don’t have to rent.
But yeah two hundred years ago it was a working plantation. As were many farms. Especially farms with money. Farms with beautiful manors.
I suspect many of the indignant posters here have actually attended events at plantations ( if they live in the DMV) F off if you are posting from the west coast.
I don’t have time to dig into it now, but many of the most popular wedding venues in the DC area were once farms worked by slaves.
They aren’t advertised as such, and mostly aren’t called plantation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would a black couple ever do it? I'm AA and I just can't imagine doing something like this.
And yes, I'd tour Mount Vernon, pp; this seems completely different.

My brother and SIL had their wedding at a plantation house here in MD. It might help to note that in MD and DE (both slave states), these properties were typically called estates and the “Big House” was called a mansion. Anyway, I felt that it was a beautiful, but insensitive setting. Through the entire day, people made jokes about the “Massa” turning over in his grave at all these black folks partying on his property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would a black couple ever do it? I'm AA and I just can't imagine doing something like this.
And yes, I'd tour Mount Vernon, pp; this seems completely different.

My brother and SIL had their wedding at a plantation house here in MD. It might help to note that in MD and DE (both slave states), these properties were typically called estates and the “Big House” was called a mansion. Anyway, I felt that it was a beautiful, but insensitive setting. Through the entire day, people made jokes about the “Massa” turning over in his grave at all these black folks partying on his property.

All the more reason to throw down hard and have a good time.

[Anonymous]

It's tone deaf and tacky IMHO.

[Anonymous]

There's a meaningful difference imo between using a venue that was once a plantation and having a "plantation wedding."


Arbitrarily, I think it matters if the place is called a "plantation" now. It just feels different. I also think it matters what has happened at the property since then and why it was preserved/turned into a venue.


This is kind of like the statues issue. It doesn't only matter what bad things the person did in their life, it matters what about their life the statue is there to celebrate/remember. The same thing can be true of a house imo.


OTOH, I remember enjoying a wedding at Whitehall in Annapolis. It's a beautiful, colonial-era house and they put a tent on the lawn going down to the Bay. I don't think there's any preservation of what must have once been a big farm - I think it's just the house and garden. Slavery, which presumably happened there, was not mentioned by anyone. In retrospect, maybe that's a weird vibe to have going on at your wedding. I could certainly respect someone feeling weird about it. It says something important about what we choose to preserve/point out about a place.

[Anonymous]

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

Do you also not tour houses like Mount Vernon?

I visit the Holocaust museum.

It would never occur to me to have a wedding there. The architecture and location is beautiful, but my spouse and I have morals, so no.