Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Vincent Vega
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby Vincent Vega » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:41 am

Just an anecdote, but not all areas even of the south are very racist. I live in North Carolina, and honestly it seems like there's less racism (both implicit and explicit) here than when I lived in Illinois. I think the south gets a bad reputation about race relation, probably because people still associate it with slavery.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby Kohinoor » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:50 am

ITT: People apparently unaware of Lynchburg, VA.

User avatar
thickfreakness
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby thickfreakness » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:52 am

Kohinoor wrote:ITT: People apparently unaware of Lynchburg, VA.


threadwin

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby rayiner » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:07 am

toaster2 wrote:thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!


1) The southern economy was not built entirely upon slave labor. Largely, it was the elite plantation owners, consisting of a few percent of the population who owned slaves. Of course, the elite pull the strings and they were perfectly willing to send everybody else's kids to fight in a war to protect their lucrative institution.

2) Everybody felt blacks were totally inferior, even most abolitionists.

3) Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He was morally opposed to slavery, but believed that slavery was protected by the Constitution in the states in which it existed, and acknowledged the rights of slave owners repeatedly during his run for President.

If you think the North would've spent and risked so much just to improve the lot of african slaves, you're egregiously miseducated. Slavery was a major bone of contention between the North and the South, but it was a piece of a much bigger puzzle.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby rayiner » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:18 am

Imagine you're from the UK and whenever you put out a statement honoring British soldiers that died in the American Revolution, every news outlet in the US puts out a statement saying how evil your soldiers were for fighting to put down the revolution and how they shouldn't be honored because of the dastardly political system they were obviously supporting by serving in England's army. Also, all Britains should be ashamed of everything that happened between the Boston Tea Party and the War of 1812. Even that time the king's mom made tea on Sunday afternoon in 1806.


This is pretty much the gist of the whole thing. From the actual text:

WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;


Doesn't sound like "oh, damn, I wish we'd won the war so we could still have slaves" as "this was a major historical event in our history and we should remember it."

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby Kohinoor » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:19 am

rayiner wrote:
toaster2 wrote:thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!


1) The southern economy was not built entirely upon slave labor. Largely, it was the elite plantation owners, consisting of a few percent of the population who owned slaves. Of course, the elite pull the strings and they were perfectly willing to send everybody else's kids to fight in a war to protect their lucrative institution.

2) Everybody felt blacks were totally inferior, even most abolitionists.

3) Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He was morally opposed to slavery, but believed that slavery was protected by the Constitution in the states in which it existed, and acknowledged the rights of slave owners repeatedly during his run for President.

If you think the North would've spent and risked so much just to improve the lot of african slaves, you're egregiously miseducated. Slavery was a major bone of contention between the North and the South, but it was a piece of a much bigger puzzle.

PREACH!

User avatar
pinkzeppelin
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby pinkzeppelin » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:31 am

rayiner wrote:
toaster2 wrote:thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!


1) The southern economy was not built entirely upon slave labor. Largely, it was the elite plantation owners, consisting of a few percent of the population who owned slaves. Of course, the elite pull the strings and they were perfectly willing to send everybody else's kids to fight in a war to protect their lucrative institution.

2) Everybody felt blacks were totally inferior, even most abolitionists.

3) Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He was morally opposed to slavery, but believed that slavery was protected by the Constitution in the states in which it existed, and acknowledged the rights of slave owners repeatedly during his run for President.

If you think the North would've spent and risked so much just to improve the lot of african slaves, you're egregiously miseducated. Slavery was a major bone of contention between the North and the South, but it was a piece of a much bigger puzzle.


If anyone has questions regarding the origins of the civil war, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Civil_War

The first explanation is slavary, but as Rayiner has noted, a deeper reading will show that it was less about a noble north and evil south fighting about slavery than it was about two very different societies fighting for their way of life.

People are arguing that the confederate soldiers should not be commemorated because of the morals they were fighting for, but judging historical figures based on our contemporary moral structure is just ignorant.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby Kohinoor » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:34 am


User avatar
pinkzeppelin
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby pinkzeppelin » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:36 am

Kohinoor wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Jackson-King_Day


lol!

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby clintonius » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:41 am

Zapatero wrote:
tallboone wrote:
It's all in good fun. Sometimes you need to poke fun at the various states in our fine union. I'll be the first to admit that my home state of California needs to be ridiculed regularly.


Virginia's a commonwealth.

hth

http://geography.about.com/b/2006/12/09 ... -state.htm

pollaclc
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:12 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby pollaclc » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:47 am

toaster2 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
tallboone wrote:Umm, if I recall correctly from my history classes, the "sacrifices" made by Confederates were done so to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Seems like a good thing to celebrate.


Out of all the southerners who fought and died for the Confederacy, very few owned slaves. The civil war was partially about slavery, yes. But let's be frank, the north wouldn't have fought the civil war if it was *just* about slavery. Northerners didn't care *that much* about the slaves. The war was in large part about a federal government dominated by northern economic interests, and a union in which the south felt it was getting the short end of the stick. Such circumstances are typical reasons for successful and unsuccessful civil wars.
thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!

the north was just as racist as the south.

User avatar
soullesswonder
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby soullesswonder » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:58 am

rayiner wrote:
toaster2 wrote:thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!


1) The southern economy was not built entirely upon slave labor. Largely, it was the elite plantation owners, consisting of a few percent of the population who owned slaves. Of course, the elite pull the strings and they were perfectly willing to send everybody else's kids to fight in a war to protect their lucrative institution.

2) Everybody felt blacks were totally inferior, even most abolitionists.

3) Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He was morally opposed to slavery, but believed that slavery was protected by the Constitution in the states in which it existed, and acknowledged the rights of slave owners repeatedly during his run for President.

If you think the North would've spent and risked so much just to improve the lot of african slaves, you're egregiously miseducated. Slavery was a major bone of contention between the North and the South, but it was a piece of a much bigger puzzle.


1. the South's economy was almost completely built on a mode of agriculture and a social hierarchy that was underpinned by slavery. While it is true that only a small percentage of Southern whites actually owned slaves, those slaves accounted for about 3.5 million out of 9 million people in the Confederacy, so their economic and social impact cannot be underestimated. Even in areas where slavery was not as economical (mostly above the thousand-foot line where the prospects of large scale agriculture sharply declined), the lower class whites who made up a large percentage of the Southern population took comfort in the fact that their race alone put them ahead of a third of the region's population AND limited competition for semi-skilled labor.

2. "Everyone" overstates a bit, but I generally agree.

3. True, but besides the point. Lincoln's actual intentions aside, Southerners believed their "peculiar institution" was under threat. Secession was motivated by a fear that the North would subvert the Southern economic and social order. Even most Confederate apologists (and I currently work for one) will acknowledge that fear existed.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby rayiner » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:01 pm

soullesswonder wrote:3. True, but besides the point. Lincoln's actual intentions aside, Southerners believed their "peculiar institution" was under threat. Secession was motivated by a fear that the North would subvert the Southern economic and social order. Even most Confederate apologists (and I currently work for one) will acknowledge that fear existed.


No, it's not besides the point. Yes, the southern elite motivated secession to protect the institution of slavery. However, unlike what toaster2 claimed, the north didn't fight to war because they were morally upstanding and wanted to help those poor black people.

User avatar
Jay-Electronica
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby Jay-Electronica » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:06 pm

I hear Alabama is going to announce a Eugene “Bull” Connor month.

User avatar
soullesswonder
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby soullesswonder » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:08 pm

rayiner wrote:
soullesswonder wrote:3. True, but besides the point. Lincoln's actual intentions aside, Southerners believed their "peculiar institution" was under threat. Secession was motivated by a fear that the North would subvert the Southern economic and social order. Even most Confederate apologists (and I currently work for one) will acknowledge that fear existed.


No, it's not besides the point. Yes, the southern elite motivated secession to protect the institution of slavery. However, unlike what toaster2 claimed, the north didn't fight to war because they were morally upstanding and wanted to help those poor black people.


I was speaking more generally to the idea that the war wasn't about slavery. I think, though, that as the war progressed you do find a change in attitudes within some parts of the union, particularly among the troops, that abolition was a cause worth fighting for. In the specific case of free black units, the experience of fighting and dying alongside colored men had a profound impact among the white troops who fought with them and the white officers who led them. So while abolition was definitely not the Northern population's goal in 1861, it was probably a significant motivation by 1864

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby 20121109 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:08 pm

Negrodamus wrote:I hear Alabama is going to announce a Eugene “Bull” Connor month.


Serious?

hellokitty
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby hellokitty » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:09 pm

Negrodamus wrote:I hear Alabama is going to announce a Eugene “Bull” Connor month.


Really?? Ugh, that is so depressing. I've been gone for a while, but I never heard about this.

User avatar
Jay-Electronica
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby Jay-Electronica » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:14 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
Serious?


hellokitty wrote:Really?? Ugh, that is so depressing. I've been gone for a while, but I never heard about this.


Sorry, I was being facetious, they are not planning that. At least I hope not.

User avatar
holydonkey
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby holydonkey » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:21 pm

soullesswonder wrote:
rayiner wrote:
toaster2 wrote:thanks for the history lesson rayiner! i guess i was confused about slavery being such a big issue during this time period. i thought that the fact that the southern economy was entirely built upon slave labor meant they would fight to the death to protect the institution. i thought that the south in particular was deathly afraid of abolition and felt that blacks were totally inferior, but you're right that they probably had other things on their minds. i also thought that northerners were major proponents of abolition (didn't lincoln run on a platform of abolition?), but thanks for letting me know they didn't put their money where their mouths were!

1) The southern economy was not built entirely upon slave labor. Largely, it was the elite plantation owners, consisting of a few percent of the population who owned slaves. Of course, the elite pull the strings and they were perfectly willing to send everybody else's kids to fight in a war to protect their lucrative institution.
If you think the North would've spent and risked so much just to improve the lot of african slaves, you're egregiously miseducated. Slavery was a major bone of contention between the North and the South, but it was a piece of a much bigger puzzle.

1. Even in areas where slavery was not as economical (mostly above the thousand-foot line where the prospects of large scale agriculture sharply declined), the lower class whites who made up a large percentage of the Southern population took comfort in the fact that their race alone put them ahead of a third of the region's population AND limited competition for semi-skilled labor.

This is not true. Read this book - "A Separate Civil War: Communities in Conflict in the Mountain South"
--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
soullesswonder
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby soullesswonder » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:28 pm

[quote="holydonkey] 1. Even in areas where slavery was not as economical (mostly above the thousand-foot line where the prospects of large scale agriculture sharply declined), the lower class whites who made up a large percentage of the Southern population took comfort in the fact that their race alone put them ahead of a third of the region's population AND limited competition for semi-skilled labor.[/quote]
This is not true. Read this book - "A Separate Civil War: Communities in Conflict in the Mountain South"
--LinkRemoved--[/quote]

I grew up in Appalachia, so I know that support for secession was hardly universal (in fact, my home county was the only one in the area that actually supported secession). Many people in the mountain regions didn't like the idea of fighting for the elites farther South (since they did not see as many economic benefits from the institution of slavery), but nonetheless there were certain social advantages to the system. Obviously, though, being white matters more in an area where half the pop are black slaves rather than someplace like far NE Georgia or Western North Carolina where blacks are more prevalent.

User avatar
beef wellington
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:05 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby beef wellington » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:30 pm

Nightrunner wrote:
Negrodamus wrote:
GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
Serious?


hellokitty wrote:Really?? Ugh, that is so depressing. I've been gone for a while, but I never heard about this.


Sorry, I was being facetious, they are not planning that. At least I hope not.

the sad part is that Alabama is shitty enough that everyone believed you

I just wish the flame had been kept up long enough for a Southerner to come in and defend it as merely being a celebration of their heritage.

fortissimo
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby fortissimo » Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:54 pm

Sauer Grapes wrote:
hellokitty wrote:
Sauer Grapes wrote: Fact of the matter is, the VAST majority of poeple today are not racist


I'm gonna disagree with that statement, at least in certain regions. Sure people may not be that open with their racism but I live in the South and I have for my entire life. I'm not sure if I can agree with using the VAST designation for non-racists in my area. It's very segregated here and there definitely more than a few racists, black and white.

Fair enough. I can't argue with what you've observed and experienced.

I guess I've found that most people, if you are polite to them, are open to the goodness of the person regardless of their skin. However, I am looking through different eyes than you and I fully realize there are other factors that play into my experience.


...how do you even know what people are thinking or say behind closed doors?

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Bummed about that UVA waitlist?

Postby YCrevolution » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:07 pm

..




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests