Slavery murals ordered out of Georgia state office

[n2doc]

Associated Press
December 31, 2010, 5:04 p.m.



ATLANTA — Murals of slaves harvesting sugar cane on a Georgia plantation and picking and ginning cotton are coming off the walls of a state building on the order of a new agriculture commissioner.

The murals are part of a collection of eight works painted by George Beattie in 1956 depicting an idealized version of Georgia farming, from the corn grown by prehistoric American Indians to a 20th century veterinary lab. In the Deep South, the history in between includes the use of slave labor.

"I don't like those pictures," said Gary Black, the newly elected agriculture commissioner. "There are a lot of other people who don't like them."

Slavery was indisputably part of 19th century farming in Georgia. By 1840, more than 280,000 slaves were living in the state, many as field hands. Just before the Civil War, slaves made up about 40% of the state's population.

more

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-slavery-murals-20110101,0,2865339.story

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Well Ashcroft covered up those breasts but we still have boobs

Being in denial doesn't cause things to disappear.

[XanaDUer]

2. Well, there WAS slavery then

not sure why they would want to remove it.

[Posteritatis]

4. I'm happy with the idea of removing idealized presentations of it. (nt)

[baldguy]

5. There was slavery in 1956?

Those murals were probably put up in response to the civil rights movement rather than any desire to depict actual history - no matter how sugar coated.

[XanaDUer]

6. No need to be snarky

I'm not pro-slavery.

[baldguy]

10. In no way do I imply that you were pro-slavery.

Just that you may have misinterpreted the reason the murals were put up in the first place.

[XanaDUer]

15. Maybe I did.

Have you read the article, and what the artist had to say about why he painted them? And, that Black, a Republican, wants the pictures removed because they reflect a past that included slavery and he does not feel that that should be represented in Georgia, even though slaves did the work, and poor whites, too, frankly, for the wealthy landowners. It is a part of Georgia and all slave-states' past. It was pretty ballsy of the artist to even get this subject matter in in that time, probably.

How is this any different from removing artists' works because they are deemed too controversial, offend certain people, etc? There is no art that does not offend someone, somewhere.

Black wants "less controversial" murals, like a farmers' market, to convey and depict the image of Georgia's agriculture. He's censoring this man's work because he does not like the content of it. I suppose Beattie should have shown a much more realistic depiction of slavery's realities, and I am not sure those would have been allowed to be put up in 1956, maybe even not now.

[Paladin]

17. They Were Put Up In Response To The Civil Rights Movement, Alright.

In 1956, the powers-that-were in the South couldn't sugar-coat the slavery issue fast enough. Those murals are a prime example of such malignant efforts. They should have come down decades ago.....

[provis99]

18. the point is the paintings make slavery look great.

If they want to show slavery pictures, they should show pictures of slaves being whipped, raped, attacked by dogs, shot, and sold.

[CurtEastPoint]

3. Story in local media said there are many works depicting the history...

of agriculture in the state and this was one painting. It happened and is part of history. It was an awful period in our history but you can't make it go away by removing a depiction of it.

[NYC Liberal]

7. Sure you can (and should), when the depiction is a totally unrealistic

idealization of reality.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. Some people want to diminish the

importance of racial and economic inequality in America. It doesn't fit into their narrative which says that every person is born with an equal chance of success in life and that those who don't succeed simply didn't try hard enough. It's not surprising that a Republican has such a reaction to a reference of slavery, however idealized.

[muntrv]

9. That's an awfully airbrushed depiction of slavery.

[bluesmail]

11. Cretin

[Swamp Rat]

12. It should be replaced with real photos of lynchings and beatings. eom

[aikoaiko]

13. Most public murals do not go into graphic detail. This mural represented the inequity of

slave, foreman, and plantation owner. Does it fully show the horrors of plantation life, no. But it is not required.

[elfin]

14. Add large (very large) font labels

These murals are artifacts in themselves of false history and can and should be presented and explained as such.

[Paladin]

16. Old Times There Are Not Forgotten........ (n/t)