New Georgia agriculture commissioner removing murals depicting slave labor

[alp227]

The incoming agriculture commissioner wants to remove paintings he considers "undesirable" that were meant to show the history of Georgia farming.

Commissioner-elect Gary Black told WXIA-TV that seven pictures in the lobby of the Agriculture Department in Atlanta will go into storage. The Republican takes office next month.

The paintings by George Beattie have been in the lobby for half a century. Two paintings depict slavery, which was allowed in Georgia until the practice was outlawed after the Civil War.

Full story: http://www.ajc.com/news/new-ag-commissioner-wants-789310.html

Found via: Drudge Retort.

Appropriate last name? (his campaign website shows that he's actually white) Given that Black is a Republican, I wonder if conservatives can cry "politically correct!" in response. And while Southern states should acknowledge the sad history of slavery, is it necessary to use art to do so if such art is supposed to depict agricultural history?

This is one mural in question:

[davidinalameda]

1. should have been taken down years ago

[msanthrope]

3. Why? When I look at them, I see white plantation owners making money off of slaves.

I think that's a good message to remember--and not whitewash.

[hlthe2b]

6. A part of history they would surely choose to forget...

I think, though it belongs in a museum with appropriate context and historical discussion, even one that could be a part of the Dept. of Agriculture.

[Taverner]

2. Well this certainly comes to mind...

[Number23]

17. I'm not sure that I understand your photos

Can you tell me what those are and their significance to American slavery?

[Taverner]

18. All cases where the photos were doctored to push a meme

These are examples from Soviet History, where if a party member ran afoul, they were removed from history, zip zap zah.

Same thing as here - a historical change via technology.

[Number23]

21. Oh, I see. Thanks a bunch for that explanation.

[EFerrari]

4. History has a well known liberal bias. n/t

[hlthe2b]

5. Those really highlight the horrors of that time...

Underscoring the extremity of the inequity, and the sense of entitlement/ general despicable nature of the plantation owner.

On the other hand, Homer Winslow is one great American artist who painted several scenes of field workers picking cotton, including this famous one of African American women. That to me is historical record, fine art, and would be quite different, depicting people as they were in a very respectful way.

[Hannah Bell]

22. that winslow painting looks like they're strolling through the cotton enjoying the nice weather.

i don't see it representing any historical reality.

it romanticizes it.

i prefer the less artistic but more historically real picture. the slaves doing the work, the overseer weighing, & the cotton buyers or plantation owners standing dressed up & doing nothing but making sure the cotton is clean enough.

[hlthe2b]

26. I think Winslow's work illustrates the fact...who was doing the labor

He does so in a way that is respectful and clearly shows them as human-- not being argued over by their "masters".... I agree that the mural depicts a truth that should not be forgotten, but I also see it as needing context-- the kind one would provide in a museum or other historical setting. To simply see it in a modern government building seems extremely insensitive, as though there was nothing wrong with viewing African Americans as slaves or inferiors-- a sense depicted in that mural. I'd argue the same about having the confederate flag flying over the building or as part of the state flag. It is a history that should be remembered, but not one that should be used to continually remind and thus offend those who faced the impacts of that sordid time.

[iamtechus]

7. Why is he taking them down, shame?

Those beautiful paintings should be hanging somewhere where they will remind the public of true southern history.

[Lint Head]

8. That mural IS Georgia's farm history

I worked in a cotton mill as a youth. The majority of historic photographs and documentation from the the 18th and 19th centuries reference slavery. This should never be forgotten. Show me a racist and I'll show you a Republican. GA is infested with Republicans.

[KansDem]

9. Out of sight; out of mind?

What's next? Lynching photos?

Without Sanctuary

[lunatica]

10. The painting you posted seems to glorify the history

The only reason we know they're slaves doing the work is because we know the history. If someone didn't know anything about our history and saw those it would look quite benign, and even idyllic. But having said that I think the true history needs to be known. Hopefully there are paintings depicting the facts about slavery.

[Lint Head]

11. Somewhere there should be a depiction of the horrors of lynching in this country.

We never should forget the horrors of the Nazi killings. Why is lynching glossed over as just something that was an aberration? During that period there were post cards depicting lynchings. I have racists and bigots in my own family that think racism is something to be joked about as if it is something quaint from the past. My relationship with them is definitely strained to say the least.

[hlthe2b]

12. Oh, there is... "Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America"

It is a very poignant and difficult, yet necessary, photographic exhibit that has toured nationally.

Here, from their website, where you can view a film or some of the photo display:
http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

Searching through America's past for the last 25 years, collector James Allen uncovered an extraordinary visual legacy: photographs and postcards taken as souvenirs at lynchings throughout America. With essays by Hilton Als, Leon Litwack, Congressman John Lewis and James Allen, these photographs have been published as a book "Without Sanctuary" by Twin Palms Publishers . Features will be added to this site over time and it will evolve into an educational tool. Please be aware before entering the site that much of the material is very disturbing. We welcome your comments and input through the forum section.

Experience the images as a flash movie with narrative comments by James Allen, or as a gallery of photos which will grow to over 100 photos in coming weeks. Participate in a forum about the images, and contact us if you know of other similar postcards and photographs.

[hedgehog]

13. I like your suggestion that paintings be added, not subtracted.

In a bit of met-history, the painting in question not only records the use of slaves but the racism that lingered (and lingers) long after the end of formal slavery.

[alp227]

20. Agreed. The painting seems a bit bright-sided

despite the depiction of the black slaves looking tired. The painter should've used a darker color scheme. Art should also include emotion, right?

[Hannah Bell]

23. idyllic? it's clear who the workers are in the picture from the activities, positions,

& clothing.

The social scale (and the presence of a social scale) is clear from the positioning and clothing.

Even if you knew nothing of slavery.

All the white men are standing tall. Two are dressed like gents: they're the cotton buyers/plantation owners. One is dressed like a worker: he's the overseer. But all standing.

The black men are all stooped or sitting; one is literally crawling on the ground picking cotton. Two of the black men have no shirts.

[lunatica]

25. I see what you see, but I don't see any reality in the painting

The painting doesn't show the misery of slavery. It's shows the hierarchy, but everyone in the painting seems to be content with it, as if it's normal. I'm sure the painter may have thought so, but the truth is that in real life slavery was quite different than depicted in that painting. Sorry, but to me that painting is trying to depict an idyllic scene.

[jwirr]

14. I have a deep interest in history and hate to see these taken down

but if they want them down they should make sure they have them someplace they are safe and open to the public. We already have holocaust deniers - once they get rid of all the evidence they will be denying slavery to.

[Igel]

15. Common enough debate.

For some, it's a reminder of their ancestor's humiliation as slaves and is interpreted as a present humiliation. For others, a reminder of their ancestors' wrongs, and therefore their ancestors' retroactively ascribed humiliation which is interpreted as a present humiliation.

For others, it's a reminder of something they'd just as soon forget. If the events aren't going to be repeated, I have no problem with forgetting. One person's forgetting doesn't entail universal forgetting. Forcing people to remember past wrongs (even if not their own, but one that they're considered to own) is a kind of browbeating: I don't do it to my wife, I don't like it when my wife does it to me.

So for yet others it's a tool to remember. For some, it's a way of reminding them to be angry or to fight. This can involve nursing grievances long past ("How dare that guy do that to my great-great-great-grandmother in 1842!") or present grievances that can be analogized ("My boss told me if I didn't work harder I'd be fired--a lynching, just like they did to my ancestors.") Or it can be a tool to nurse pride: "We were slaves, we're free, we worked hard and made life better--if we work hard we can continue to make life better."

Of course, as a tool for remembering it's also a tool for the bad guys: "Look at them, that's what their proper place is."

So the line dividing those who want this kind of thing removed from sight and those who want it kept meanders a lot. In the Children's Museum in Rochester (which isn't so much a museum for children but a museum of how children lived) there are lots of signs saying that certain things are presented for historical completeness, with apologizes if they cause offense. Because just as some epithets cannot be quoted out of context without being deemed hurtful and indicative of profound racism on the part of the quoter (unless the quoter is absolutely above suspicion), so some artefacts cannot be displayed without being deemed hurtful and indicative of profound racism on the part of the displayer (unless the displayer is absolutely above suspicion).

My only concern is that it be seen as a work of fiction. There's a tendency at times to confuse similiarity with identity. So I watched a discussion of a work of Latino fiction in which the students--and the teacher--wondered if the bad guy in the book had ever been fined or arrested for his actions, not in the story (which is all we know of the fictitious incident) but in real life. One person wondered if she may have been related to one of the characters. In the case of this painting, it's stereotyped. It's a 1950s take on what life was like in, perhaps, the 1840s. In fact, the "hero" of the painting is cotton, the black owners, the white guy doing the weighing, and the black slaves notwithstanding. Unlike a photo, in which the incidental details are true because they're real, the incidental details in a painting just reflect the painter's understanding of what the historical reality was like. (Which are then filtered through the viewer's perception.)

[Number23]

16. Shameful. Certainly typical, but definitely shameful.

[aikoaiko]

19. Too bad. They should stay up.

I think the juxtaposition of the fine clothed 'gentlemen' and the hard working slaves does some measure of justice to the inequity of plantation life and southern industry.

[Nye Bevan]

24. YES. Slavery was unpleasant so let's remove any evidence of it from historical displays.

That way, we can pretend that it never happened, and feel better about ourselves.

This is not the first time a Republican has attempted to edit history. I'm surprised that people here are defending him.