Wedding Woes

Can't Choose Between 2 Venues

2»

Re: Can't Choose Between 2 Venues

  • Sorry to go off tangent, OP.  But I need to play some devil's advocate.

    Slavery is abhorrent and horrifying.  Not at all arguing that.  But I don't understand the vilification of properties and grounds, just because they're post Civil War.  They weren't slave labor camps yesterday.  They were slave labor camps 150 years ago.  In the meantime, they've been residences for generations of families.  Some of them have been businesses.  Many of them were derelict for decades and rebuilt.

    Even the word plantation isn't a bad one, though I do understand the negative connotation.  But large farms are still called plantations, including in places that never had slavery.

    I can a little better understand the disgust with describing a house as a "plantation-style".  Because that does very specifically denote a Southern house style, popular during slave times.  But I also understand why that descriptor is used.  Because it is a style of house that most people can picture in their minds.  Where as, if you use the term Neo-Classical, you're going to lose a lot of people. 

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are tens of thousands of buildings in the South, still standing, that were built before the Civil War.  So, for someone like myself who lives amongst them, I see them as they are now.  They didn't stop in time.  Obviously I'm not saying we should forget history, but you also don't think about or dwell on that "slaves worked in that house!"...and that house...and that house...and that house, in my great, great, great, great, great grandparents time.

    It’s not that all Civil War era buildings are awful. Or that people shouldn’t maintain these properties. But more the idea that particularly for plantations these were slave labor camps where people were murdered, exploited, and a whole long list of other horrors done to them by people profiting off their bodies and their lives. The idea that someone would get married there, without any acknowledgement or recognition of the history and the land feels, for many people inappropriate. 

    I know there are plantations that are still working farms, but that acknowledge and discuss the horrific history of the land. If this venue does that, then okay; but my guess is any wedding venue isn’t going to have a section on what really happened there to make the land and the building profitable. 

    Plantations also differ than prewar houses in that they are large, prominent symbols of slavery. Yes many, many houses (not just in the south) participated in slavery, but plantations are these most visible, tangible and recognizable representations of those atrocities. I’m not saying tear them down (although many people do advocate for that) but I think any owner of the property now bears a responsibility for addressing and acknowledging what took place on their land. 

    I do hear what you are saying about the bigger places that were literally farms and used lots of slave labor.  But, to be fair, that isn't the impression I got from the first venue she described.  I don't want to put words in the OP's mouth, but it sounds like it's just a big house the owner lives in.  Possibly just a "plantation style" looking house that wasn't even built before the Civil War and was never a farm.

    There are only so many antebellum mansions left that were once part of large estates.  And those are typically pretty famous and have tours.  I didn't get that vibe at all from her description of Venue #1, though possibly Venue #2.

    I've also been on many of those tours.  They do emphasize that the farms and households were run on slave labor.  They give sobering descriptions of what life was like for slaves, along with exhibits on that subject.  It's a main topic of the tours and is not glossed over.  Though they don't go into the horror in as much graphic detail as it deserves, because there are typically children present.  

    And, true, almost all of those antebellum mansions can be rented for events.  Including weddings.  On a silver lining, many of them are not-for-profit.  It's those kind of events that help them keep the doors open so people can see, first hand on those tours, history come alive.  It's one thing to read about slavery in history books.  It's another to see the tiny one-room cabins that housed whole families.  And knowing even that is barely scratching the surface on how truly monsterous it was.

    I mean, if she used the word “plantation” to mean something other than the decorative centerpiece of a slave labor camp then cool. Enjoy the venue. I do know there are parts of the world where plantation does not mean that. 
  • STARMOON44STARMOON44 member
    First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited October 2018

    I appreciate you all!  Because I didn't get the same vibe at all that you all did about at least OP's Venue #1, I more got the impression that everyone was vilifying any place that ever had slave labor.

    I can much more understand the distaste with venues that are touted and advertised as antebellum mansions.  Edited to add: "distaste with them as wedding/event venues".  Because those houses are literally supposed to be a look into an ugly place in US history, when slave labor existed.  And they are important places for that reason.

    With that said, if you were talking about exactly the same house/grounds...just without the tours/plaques/"this is life in 1850" vibe...I wouldn't have any qualms with it.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but yes I literally am saying that slave labor camps, with or without tours and plaques, are a vile hateful place to host a wedding. I don’t care how they advertise themselves.
  • I have to admit that I didn't even pay attention and it didn't even occur to me that people could use locations of slave labor as wedding venues.

    Please don't use any venue that either once operated with slave labor and / or glorifies its past.
  • So I have to ask -

    I'm a Canadian and I grew up in a 'plantation' style house. It was built in 1980. My neighbourhood is next to an Indigenous community and the city and my employer recognize Treaty 7 status at all meetings. Plantation style is the only way I can describe my house without going into a long narrative. Is it wrong that I describe my house this way? I'm aware that the land it was built on wasn't formally described as treaty land but certainly Indigenous populations traveled across it and I'm sure there was shady stuff that happened at some point.

  • ernursej said:

    So I have to ask -

    I'm a Canadian and I grew up in a 'plantation' style house. It was built in 1980. My neighbourhood is next to an Indigenous community and the city and my employer recognize Treaty 7 status at all meetings. Plantation style is the only way I can describe my house without going into a long narrative. Is it wrong that I describe my house this way? I'm aware that the land it was built on wasn't formally described as treaty land but certainly Indigenous populations traveled across it and I'm sure there was shady stuff that happened at some point.

    I honestly have no idea. I think the cultural context of the word is critically important- entirely possible in Canada this is fine. Certainly a house built in 1980 is not at all the concern I first raised on this thread or what any of us have been discussing. 
  • OP - consider "creature comforts" for your guests in case of rain, bathrooms, parking, walking and stairs for those with mobility issues, etc.  Plus, check into what the cost of those rentals is in the real world as that can truly change your budget just in one detail alone.
  • ernursej said:

    So I have to ask -

    I'm a Canadian and I grew up in a 'plantation' style house. It was built in 1980. My neighbourhood is next to an Indigenous community and the city and my employer recognize Treaty 7 status at all meetings. Plantation style is the only way I can describe my house without going into a long narrative. Is it wrong that I describe my house this way? I'm aware that the land it was built on wasn't formally described as treaty land but certainly Indigenous populations traveled across it and I'm sure there was shady stuff that happened at some point.

    'Plantation style' means nothing, if I'm honest. I would need a long narrative if it was essential that I understand what your childhood house looked like (but really, how many times do you have this conversation?).

    Most plantations are built in the architectural style of 'Georgian' or  'Greek Revival'. That is more descriptive, accurate, and correct. 'Plantation-style' is nebulous- it doesn't mean anything architecturally.  Plus it is a loaded word.

    It is a bit like saying 'WW1 Style'. Do you mean Edwardian? late Beauxarts? Victorian? 'Neo Colonial' ? Lots of architectural styles happened at once so just describing the time period really doesn't do a lot to describe the house.


    Lately, having this conversation a lot as we are looking at building our forever home and I love my childhood home style. Usually, doesn't come very often!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards