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

Do you also not tour houses like Mount Vernon?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.