Why do people think Atlanta has no history? (Griffin, Decatur: credit, homes)

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Very true. I was going to say that perhaps Birmingham deserves the "wretched" description relative to its history, but even then, it has to be realized that although Birmingham is a young city having been founded after the Civil War, the Civil Rights era doesn't constitute the entirety of the city's history.

birmingham probably fits the 'wretched past' description very well, especially when you consider the city's foundings as a steel town with workers both black and white in what is now considered slavery working at the sloss furnace and others.

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Next Thursday celebrates the 150th Anniversary of being burned down and our railway being pulled up by Yankees. I would call that wretched by even the broadest definition.

LOL you'd think we could let it go after 150 years. yes, it sucked a lot, but everyone who was involved or affected by it is dead a lot, also.

Originally Posted by Galounger

This black dude has said the same thing before as well.

It gets very tiresome some times listening to Northernors acting as if the South invented racism and they never had anything to do with it up there.

Not excusing the South for some of it's major indiscretions but people from Bristol and Liverpool England to New York and Boston, Havana and Rio and even Africans in Africa all profited greatly off slavery and the slave trade. It wasn't just a southern thing.

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/09...ple-as-slaves/

it doesn't make up for what we did down here. just because someone else did it doesn't make it terrible. nowadays racism is still around and i would bet it's just as common in the "union" cities as it is in metro atlanta, if it were studied. a quick google search regarding stop-and-frisk and some of the reasons people have for the decline of detroit can reveal some of the crap that's going around out there.

[Columbuskidd92]

Atlanta wouldn't be here today if it didn't have history. I think you can say Atlanta history doesn't standout well compared to other big southern cities.

[afonega1]

[quote=Columbuskidd92;32179048]Atlanta wouldn't be here today if it didn't have history. I think you can say Atlanta history doesn't standout well compared to other big southern cities.[/QUOTE]

Like what BIG Southern cities?

Houston?No
Dallas?No
New Orleans?Yes
Charlotte?LOL.umm NO
Miami?No way!
Nashville?About the same.
Memphis?Maybe.Not really a big city comparably speaking

[ThreeSides]

[quote=afonega1;32179321]

Originally Posted by Columbuskidd92

Atlanta wouldn't be here today if it didn't have history. I think you can say Atlanta history doesn't standout well compared to other big southern cities.[/QUOTE]

Like what BIG Southern cities?

Houston?No
Dallas?No
New Orleans?Yes
Charlotte?LOL.umm NO
Miami?No way!
Nashville?About the same.
Memphis?Maybe.Not really a big city comparably speaking

Come on A! The criteria is "standout well" I think that Houston does that: "Remember the Alamo."

Dallas. I don't know any historical Dallas facts.

Charlotte. I don't know any historical Charlotte facts.

Miami. In your spare time, check out Cocaine Cowboys, if you haven't already. Miami has a very interesting past.

Nashville. I don't know any historical Nashville facts.

Memphis. I knew little about Memphis prior to moving there in 2003. That is, I knew that it was in TN and I erroneously thought that it was Opryland central. Memphis has an interesting past. I'm not certain which stands out more, Memphis or Atlanta. I don't know much about Atlanta's past. However, I'm interested in learning about it. Perhaps that's why I was more impressed with the Expedia.com video than most. We were at the zoo yesterday. I wanted to go into the Cyclorama. Whether it was open or not, my children were tired. Therefore, we went home.

Memphis is bigger than Atlanta, in terms of square miles and population. That can't be argued.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by ThreeSides

Come on A! The criteria is "standout well" I think that Houston does that: "Remember the Alamo."

Dallas. I don't know any historical Dallas facts.

Charlotte. I don't know any historical Charlotte facts.

Miami. In your spare time, check out Cocaine Cowboys, if you haven't already. Miami has a very interesting past.

Nashville. I don't know any historical Nashville facts.

Memphis. I knew little about Memphis prior to moving there in 2003. That is, I knew that it was in TN and I erroneously thought that it was Opryland central. Memphis has an interesting past. I'm not certain which stands out more, Memphis or Atlanta. I don't know much about Atlanta's past. However, I'm interested in learning about it. Perhaps that's why I was more impressed with the Expedia.com video than most. We were at the zoo yesterday. I wanted to go into the Cyclorama. Whether it was open or not, my children were tired. Therefore, we went home.

Memphis is bigger than Atlanta, in terms of square miles and population. That can't be argued.

The Alamo was in San Antonio not Houston. Also None of the cities you're naming have more national historic districts than Atlanta under 132 sq mi.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

the alamo was in san antonio not houston. Also none of the cities you're naming have more national historic districts than atlanta under 132 sq mi.

*snap*

[ThreeSides]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

The Alamo was in San Antonio not Houston. Also None of the cities you're naming have more national historic districts than Atlanta under 132 sq mi.

Meh, I was thinking of Sam Houston.

Correction: I don't know any Houston historical facts either.

[DJDeadParrot]

I can't totally disagree with the OP; there seems to be no conscious awareness of the city's history. Of course Atlanta has history; nobody is literally saying it doesn't have history because, perhaps, it was created out of nothing when this thread started.

Atlanta owes its existence to railroads, but you hardly see any of those railroads now, much less the ones still serving Atlanta. Many of the places pointed out by the poster on page 2 don't exist anymore. For example, Union Station has had three incarnations. Sure, the first one was burned by an invading army. The second one? There's a parking deck there now. The third one built a couple of blocks away? Razed to build Underground Atlanta. Terminal Station? That was razed at nearly the same time as the last Union Station. BTW, how many of you would know where Terminal Station was without looking it up?

I'm not suggesting that the city's history is erased when these buildings no longer exist. Rather, the city's tangible history is no longer tangible, and becomes little more than a story.

[AnsleyPark]

[quote=ThreeSides;32179414]

Originally Posted by afonega1

Dallas. I don't know any historical Dallas facts.

Who shot J.R.????

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

The Alamo was in San Antonio not Houston. Also None of the cities you're naming have more national historic districts than Atlanta under 132 sq mi.

Bet me to it.LOL