duhhh... Tourists everywhere, seeing every aspect of anyplace, see "sanitized" history. Why pick on the plantations? When a tourist's interest is piqued he'll seek out the various true-to-fact stories behind the "tourist version."
We should not get off-point to the fact that slavery was, and continues to be, vile and reprehensible. We should learn and understand the historical facts and context. It should not be exaggerated or sanitized.
But one should get off the point of America as the only and main bad guy in this. There is much blame to go around. I see that some allow for context in the case of African slave merchants that they deny to others.
For those who feel the need to be so active I encourage them forget reparations for ancient grievances and look to combatting modern slavery as it still exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_day_slavery
What you do see people of color reveling and obsessing in the sanitized history of slavery. Without the ability to be the victim their lives would hold no meaning.
There is little or no mention of the African merchants/princes who sold other tribesmen into slavery to be exported by Arab merchants to the West. Without the constant attention to 150+ year old history many would be without political power.
As far as living like a slave you have never studied the state of sharecroppers and miners. Careful study of their life conditions should leave you gasping. Those who profitted DIRECTLY from slave labor were few indeed. If you start harping on the fact of what it did to build the economy then Blacks also have profitted, even if indirectly.
For those who point to the treatment of slaves I would say they didn't study contemporary family life. The man was king and the young ones and womenfolk did as they were told. Life was filled with expectations that modern society would equate with slavery.
The one over-looked fact is that slavery was, indeed, institutionalized in the Confederate Constitution. So the South did make it about the defence of slavery, whether the North had it as its primary goal or not.
(Thank you Glenn Beck for telling about this fact.)
I hardly believe www.change.org is sugarcoating. They are telling of something happening in a fairly objective way.
Everywhere you look in the WORLD you will see a whitewashing of history. And I'm not sure Jefferson forcilby raped Sally. Logic would dictate that it was at most a soft coersion. Not pretty, but not a objectively violent act.
We should examine the past with modern eyes, but hesitate to judge them by modern standards. If you do this with those you admire you will find that no culture/nation/religion/man will live up to your standards. Take them as they were and reflect on them and what should/could have been without condemning.
Investors in the "civilized" states profited handsomely from slavery, which is one of the reasons it stood for as long as it did. People ALWAYS romantize the past, whether it is their personal lives or general history. People romantize Stalin and Soviet history, even though he killed far more people than Hitler. People romanticize Mao when the blood on his hands is so heavy historians can't even begin to quantify it.
true, but the tourist would never sleep in them so the hoteliers had to modernize outbuildings and make them livable by modern standards - perhaps they should have been left in their primitive state and rented as campground cabins
Why the self-hating stuff. No nation exhibits "delicate" parts of their history without some degree. And the tour guides would get through their day by explaining the exhibits in a balanced nature. "The slave quarters are actually just the physical buildings. Of course, the actual living conditions were [thus and so]."