Wedding planning sites change policies on slave plantations

[laylalex 7,249]

Quote

Four major websites used for wedding planning are revising their policies on content referencing former slave plantations, responding to an advocacy group's campaign urging the companies to stop promoting venues where black people were once brutalized.

Pinterest says it will now limit distribution of content promoting plantation venues. The Knot and Brides will no longer allow content glorifying the history of plantations. And Zola will stop listing plantation venues on its site altogether.

All four sites announced the changes this week after receiving letters from Color of Change, which describes itself as the country's largest online racial justice organization with 1.5 million members. The organization also sent a letter to Martha Stewart Weddings, which reached back to the group to start a conversation about the issue.

"Plantations are not just beautiful or charming places," said Jade Magnus Ogunnaike, senior campaign director of Color of Change, which objected to such descriptions of plantations in its letters to the companies. "They are places that were intentionally created to force black people to work, torture them and sexual abuse them."

https://www.mcall.com/business/sns-bc-us--wedding-venues-plantations-20191205-story.html

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

"Something bad happened at some point in human history on this piece of land, you can't have a wedding here!" 🤡

 

Outrage culture. 

[laylalex 7,249]

I don't think I'd want to hold a wedding on the site of a Japanese internment camp, even with the prettiest facilities set up there. I understand why people are drawn to the look of a plantation -- I loved Gone with the Wind when I was little, and wanted to have a wedding dress that looked like Scarlett O'Hara's dress in the very first scene of the movie -- but it's more than just what something looks like. Slavery was an American atrocity. I think keeping these plantations open as museums and putting them in their complete context is very important. That is not to say that the only reason why they should be places to visit is to consider only the brutality and sadness of the slavery that took place there, and from what I understand some have swung too far in the other direction. But it is just tacky to think it is somehow just fine to host a wedding at a plantation without considering the entire context of the place, and who wants to host a wedding where the context includes human suffering?

 

These places will continue to host weddings and will do just fine, I'm sure. There's certainly a market for them.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Yes, they will keep having weddings at these places, not as a homage to plantations, but because often times they're beautiful pieces of land, and thankfully few people will care about the toxic, divisive fabricated outrage "Color of Change" tries to monetize. 😎

Edited December 8, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,249]

Is the outrage that slavery existed on these plantations divisive and fabricated though? It certainly is toxic, the greatest stain on our nation, I will agree on that. Is this not as distasteful as setting up a marquee at Manzanar?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

47 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Is the outrage that slavery existed on these plantations divisive and fabricated though? It certainly is toxic, the greatest stain on our nation, I will agree on that. Is this not as distasteful as setting up a marquee at Manzanar?

Brought to us, subsidized, and fully supported by the Brits.  Would never have happened without them.

 

And your OP is poo poo.  Slavery ended.  Time to get over it.  I nearly bought one of those plantations a few years ago.  Beautiful place, no doubt.  But far too large and too much maintenance.

Edited December 8, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

51 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Is the outrage that slavery existed on these plantations divisive and fabricated though? It certainly is toxic, the greatest stain on our nation, I will agree on that. Is this not as distasteful as setting up a marquee at Manzanar?

What you're describing is called virtue signaling. One isn't doing anything virtuous by not having a wedding on a piece of land that was once a plantation centuries ago. It has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the event in question. 

 

What's divisive is thin skinned people trying to coerce other people into ideological/social/political uniformity through the cudgel of outrage. Of course, I also don't have kind views toward those that placate them either. For people who want to be offended, you'll never stop finding criteria that fulfills it.

 

In the end its a piece of land, and even those who psychologically can't get over it, I suggest positivism, is far more psychologically healthy. For example, what would be more empowering than a black couple getting married on a site where white people once treated their ancestors as subhuman? Easy illustration of how the times have changed.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Boiler 43,558]

I always wonder how people can get married in California on land stolen from Mexico.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

10 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I always wonder how people can get married in California on land stolen from Mexico.

The obvious virtue signal solution is to either ban all marriages in California, or some equally useless idea, like placing some symbol of Mexican heritage/history on marriage certificates. So an extremely small minority feel really good about nothing at all, and just move onto the next vacuous issue.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Boiler 43,558]

There should be some way of acknowledging their WP, perhaps an apology as part of the service?

 

A levy for repatriations?

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

"Something bad happened at some point in human history on this piece of land, you can't have a wedding here!" 🤡

 

Outrage culture. 

Pinterest and the knot are private enterprises and if they do change their editorial copy" it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg" , so why do you care?

 

[Ban Hammer 12,850]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

https://www.mcall.com/business/sns-bc-us--wedding-venues-plantations-20191205-story.html

seems fitting for the guy that's about to live in servitude.

[Boiler 43,558]

3 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

seems fitting for the guy that's about to live in servitude.

A somewhat obvious correlation that no doubt they wish to avoid.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

I don't think I'd want to hold a wedding on the site of a Japanese internment camp, even with the prettiest facilities set up there. I understand why people are drawn to the look of a plantation -- I loved Gone with the Wind when I was little, and wanted to have a wedding dress that looked like Scarlett O'Hara's dress in the very first scene of the movie -- but it's more than just what something looks like. Slavery was an American atrocity. I think keeping these plantations open as museums and putting them in their complete context is very important. That is not to say that the only reason why they should be places to visit is to consider only the brutality and sadness of the slavery that took place there, and from what I understand some have swung too far in the other direction. But it is just tacky to think it is somehow just fine to host a wedding at a plantation without considering the entire context of the place, and who wants to host a wedding where the context includes human suffering?

 

These places will continue to host weddings and will do just fine, I'm sure. There's certainly a market for them.

 

These type of places here in the south get booked and stay booked for months and sometimes a year in advance. I am sure they might lose some bookings but other people will come in and scoop those bookings right up

Edited December 9, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

I always wonder how people can get married in California on land stolen from Mexico.

 

Same way they do in Texas.