system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Weddings that take place at plantations should not be considered offensive.

Recently it was announced that Pinterest and The Knot will stop promoting wedding venues and content that feature plantations. This got me thinking about why people are so offended about weddings that take place on plantations. Despite reading several articles and comments decrying these weddings, I still don’t understand the offense. 

Yes, atrocities took place on plantations. Atrocities also took/take place at other locations that are considered acceptable as wedding locations - anywhere where Native American land was forcibly stolen or where their tribes were intentionally wiped out, anywhere where a war battle had once taken place, anywhere that was once segregated, anywhere that was once built by, housed or otherwise used enslaved people, anywhere where people have been raped, etc. Slaves built the White House and many universities buildings, farms and other buildings that are currently used for celebrations and weddings with no objection. Why are plantations singled out? If American people refused to have a wedding anywhere where atrocities once happened, they’d basically be limited to fairly new construction in areas Native Americans have never lived - I mean, what would even be left? Foreign venues in a country where there have never been slaves or war?

Also not all plantations used enslaved people and not all of them used a lot of enslaved people. For example, a large manor in the South could’ve had 15 enslaved people and a plantation could’ve had 5 enslaved people and used paid labor for the rest. Obviously neither have enslaved people today and haven’t for many years. Yet the manor can be promoted as a wedding venue today without offense and the plantation can’t just because one is a farm and the other isn’t? I think that’s unfair.

Do we decry all buildings for their racist or sexist pasts? Should none of us ever get married in churches, temples and other religious buildings that once refused to  condone interracial or LGBTQ marriages or segregation or used enslaved people’s labor or services (essentially ruling out any historic religious building), even if they’ve changed their tunes now?

Plantations today are still working farms with  features such as historical tours, wine-tasting, pick your owl fruits and veggies, haunted hay rides, live music, etc. Clearly they’re very different than how they used to be generations ago. If the current owners acknowledge the previous owners/their ancestors’ use of slave labor somewhere (e.g., historical exhibit at the plantation, pamphlets, description of history on its website), I don’t see why people shouldn’t use it as a wedding venue without a sense of shame. 

Overall, who knows what other venues once used slave labor? Basically any building built before 1865 would be disallowed (as well as any buildings currently built on former Native American land), and I don’t think people should be prevented from having weddings basically anywhere in America without being called insensitive - because that’s what the result would be. Also we’d have to build a new White House, Capitol, Smithsonian Institute, Wall Street, Faneuil Hall, Harvard University, Georgetown University, University of Virginia, Monticello, Great Pyramid, Great Wall...where does it end?

CMV.
gpt
>Plantations today are still working farms with features such as historical tours, wine-tasting, pick your owl fruits and veggies, haunted hay rides, live music, etc.

Agreed. The difference is marketing. If you market your venue as a vineyard, farm, orchard, or whatever, The Knot has no problem listing your venue.

When you *specifically* market as a plantation, you're taking advantage of the charged connotation of the word. At best, you're marketing using some kind of social or rural identity. At worst, you're dogwhistling to attract racist clientele.