Talk:Planter class

southern regional distinctiveness
Since the article has no sources, it might be of interest to try to reformulate the origins of the regional distinctiveness of the American south. Rachel Klein, in Unification of a Slave State: The Rise of the Planter Class in the South Carolina Backcountry, 1760-1808 makes the point that the planter class was precapitalist (because slavery was an extension of household economy and because slavery inhibited the development of a labor market) and southern regional distinctiveness should be understood in the context of the developing capitalist relationships in the North. See — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Walk me through this proposal, . That slavery is more a trade of the homestead than an organized business is understood, but you wish to present the antebellum South from a Northern perspective? If so, I must object. – Conservatrix (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say that "in the context of relationship with X" is not the same as "from the perspective of X". The perspective of any Wikipedia article should be neutral. Vexations (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well...so long as the comparison is not disparaging or a moral crusade, I take no issue. – Conservatrix (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

New Beginnings
This article was formerly a redirect made into a content page on June 21, 2018. A few interested parties have noted its developmental shortcomings, but remain cognizant of the fact this article is less than 24 hours old. I mean to contribute in-line citations and more content over the coming weeks, and further wish to "globalize" the subect by including the planters of Brazil, Canada/New France, Cuba, New Spain, Saint-Domingue, etc. All willing editors are encouraged to help develop this monumental subject! – Conservatrix (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, by way of explanation I came to this as an NPP reviewer. As it happens, I am acquainted with the academic literature on the subject and so know there is enough sourcing to establish the term/concept’s wiki-notability, and thus approved the entry with just a couple of tags; but you might consider next time working in draftspace (whether through Article Wizard, your sandbox, another userspace page) until you have cited the references validating notability and then moving to mainspace, because reviewers most often are not subject matter experts and may wind up nominating for deletion or restoring redirects of mainspace entries if notability isn’t clearly indicated. Hope that helps avoid difficulties! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I would caution editors that this article is not about slavery and not about wars, but is about the planters and their relationship to those topics. New sections must hold the planters as the focus and should instead offer links to pages where the specifics of slavery and war are discussed. Please refrain from moral crusading, cited or otherwise, and be mindful that casual readers visiting this page are coming to learn about a lost culture. – Conservatrix (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have unreviewed this entry, having changed my view and now believing it should be draftified until it has adequate sourcing to create neutral verifiable content on this topic. However since I have now edited the page I won’t draftify it myself but instead leave it for another reviewer. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would gently caution against use of absolutes like "must" when discussing the article. Now that it is in the mainspace article development will proceed organically. In cases where there may be disagreement about content, direction or tone these will be resolved via WP:CONSENSUS in line with WP:PAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, AO. There seem to be many contradictory opinions regarding the direction of this article and my statement was meant to remind those interested that we already have articles on slavery and war. – Conservatrix (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt that casual readers come to read about "a lost culture", and I'm not convinced that that should be the topic of the article. Origins of southern hospitality in the social practices among the antebellum planters classes are already discussed at Southern hospitality. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The future of this article is probably best foreshadowed by its academic classification "socio-economic." We ought to focus on these aspects of global planter society. Should you be knowledgeable in economics, a notion gleaned from your recent contributions, the article could stand to benefit from the addition of a section discussing global trade, household economics, farm management, etc. – Conservatrix (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

better image source
The Occidental Observer, a white nationalist publication is the source of an unattributed image that is captioned "Blacks murdering white civilians during the Haitian Revolution" and titled. The link provided on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planter_class#/media/File:Haitian_Revolution_-_Blacks_murdering_white_civilians.gif does not work BTW. I'm unable to find a reliable source for the image.

A much more suitable image with a very similar subject matter that can be attributed correctly is Incendie de la Plaine du Cap. - Massacre des Blancs par les Noirs. FRANCE MILITAIRE. - Martinet del. - Masson Sculp - 33.jpg. It was published in, engraved by Antoine Masson after a drawing by Pierre Martinet) and has a contemporary caption in the image itself: "Incendie de la Plaine du Cap. Massacre des Blancs par les Noirs", which I'd translate as "Burning of Plaine du Cap. Massacre of whites by blacks." A scholarly source that provides some context on the engraving is https://journals.openedition.org/orda/665. Vexations (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your proposed change does have a better source. Its replacement would be fine if the margins do not critically restrict the image. – Conservatrix (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Page Organization
This page is obviously under development, but other editors are not mindreaders and I felt a clarification of vision was warranted. These are my opinions and are of course not definite. The History section was published with the Rise of Abolitionism subsection established first so that knowledgeable editors interested in the popular fall of this class may contribute information and perfect my framework. I mean to divide the History section into five parts: 1. Lead 2. Emergence of the Planter 3. Apotheosis 4. Rise of Abolitionism 5. American Civil War/End of An Era. The page itself could be arranged: 1. History 2. Women in Planter society 3. Economy 4. Architecture. All subject to change.

I will not be tackling the economics section whatsoever. An ambitious party is welcome to pursue its establishment, preferably giving attention to global trade, household economics and farm management.

The proposed Women in Planter society section has an alternative in the Southern belle article, but this page focuses on the American experience. My contribution to this section will be brief (maybe three healthy paragraphs), and will cover the matriarchal role of the planter's wife and social expectations placed both on her and her daughters.

Finally, yes, I am aware that my citations are lagging pitifully behind section development. Please feel welcome to remove or discuss anything that may raise concern.

Conservatrix (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it may be helpful to take a look at what articles already exist, where there is overlap, and where content is still missing. For example: we have Plantation complexes in the Southern United States that covers much of the same as the architecture section. There is also Plantations in the American South, where I this article could serve as the main article for the Plantation_owner section. Perhaps a See also section is appropriate. It would be an omission not to mention how the planter class acquired its wealth, but the operation of a plantation can be covered elsewhere. A discussion of the political ideology of the planter class, on the other hand, would be fascinating, I think. Vexations (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An excellent point! A philosophy section would allow us to detail planter beliefs on the role of man, the influence of Christianity on social order, the role of women, the inferiority of slaves, etc. Should you be sincere, the fourth chapter of the listed 1798 book The Coffee Planter of Saint Domingo is dedicated to the author's beliefs on slavery. Prepare to master reading English with its period application of the long S. – Conservatrix (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Coffee Planter of Saint Domingo is probably worthy of its own article. Vexations (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have typed and pulled together five paragraphs destined for a climax/closing section on planters in the American Civil War. The question is, "how do we discuss the war whilst not focusing on the warfare?" My conclusion was that we mention its impact on planter society, its impact on world trade, and the planter characters of the battlefield. So, we discuss the glorious moments of planter commanders, summarize the inbetween, ideology, contribute a few obscure characters, portraits of leaders in the margins, etc. More or less telling the story from the perspective of an Atlanta salon and less so that of a tactician. What are your thoughts, ? – Conservatrix (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My thoughts, ? I don't think it is in line with Wikipedia's mission to tell a story from a single perspective. I think we should show how the (former) planter class saw itself during the war and the reconstruction era, how they were perceived by other classes, and how they transformed. As for glorious moments of planter commanders, I don't think that's necessary to repeat claims about the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Vexations (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The story should be told from multiple perspectives. To prevent further article butchery, I have drafted three of the paragraphs on my sandbox. – Conservatrix (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Origins?
The origins of the planter class are to be found in the Plantations of Ireland in the 16th century.Leutha (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

These Are a Class of Enslavers Not Planters
The act of planting has a causal dependence upon the enslavement of other human beings. I propose that this page renmamed something more appropriate, such as "agrarian enslaver class" rather than the benign "planter" description Louis Waweru Talk  03:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is your suggested name supported by sources? Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Er they owned slaves. WP:SPADE. The term "planter" or the term "plantation" are just pithy affirmations to hide the awful truth of the matter, these people profited through the enslavement of others. Maybe plantations should be included in articles on Arbeitslager or Labor camps?. No one seems to have a problem with the sick irony in the statement "Arbeit macht frei", but apparently being enslaved to work forever on a white man's farmer in the United States, well that be a planter on their plantation! 146.200.202.126 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. General consensus is that the article should not be moved as proposed, and if anything the article itself (or at least the lead) should be changed, not the title. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior  19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Planter class → Southern slaveholders – "Planter class" seems like a MOS:EUPHEMISM which should be avoided similar to how we don't have articles labeled "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It didn't take much for me to find WP:RS which use the term "Southern slaveholders". Therefore, I can imagine there are more out there which use the term in lieu of "planter class" or "Southern aristocracy" (both of which don't adequately describe this group which was defined by its ownership of other people). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. IMO the problem is not the title but that this is a crummy entry. If you plug “planter class” into Google scholar, there’s no shortage of academic literature that could have presented the topic neutrally. It just wasn’t used in the creation of this entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a standard term, esp. in academic literature. Although I am not sure why the lede is referring to the southern United States. The term "planter class" is commonly used in Britain, in reference to the elites who made their fortunes in the West Indies in the 18th Century.  And the content of the article seems to refer to the planter class generally across British, French and Spanish colonies during that period. The article title should definitely not be changed as proposed.  This is not narrowly about the southern United States.  The lede of the article should be rewritten to reflect the title.  That whole part about the US crammed at the top should be moved to a subsection below, and a more general lede written to better encompass the content and purpose of this article.  Walrasiad (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support New World slaveholders as per . The proposed title cannot work because this article isn't just about them. Red   Slash  16:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Innisfree - the article is lousy and does little other than define the established historiographical term "planter". A rename might make sense as part of a broader improvement of the article, but a one-shot change will not improve anything. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current title is necessary, even if it doesn't go much beyond definitions. "Planter" is a common term for a largely 18th Century social class, much like "Bourgeoise" or "Proletariat", terms which are commonly found all sorts of literature, both contemporary and modern (economics, history, art, architecture, etc.).  The exact meaning of these terms is not always clear to readers when they come across them. So it is necessary to have an article here with that name, describing its characteristics.  It is enough to just give definitions and paint with broad brushstrokes here. The particulars of each country will be different of course, and their details are better dealt with in country-specific articles.  But an overview article for this class is necessary.   I think just fixing the lede (which seems to have thrown our OP off) and some other minor adjustments are probably enough for now.  Definitely do not rename.  This is a common term of art, and needs to be retained. Walrasiad (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose "Planter" is the term most commonly used in academic literature to refer to this group. Curbon7 (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)