Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
User avatar
LLB2JD
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby LLB2JD » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:01 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Fred_McGriff wrote:To frame it in a bit of perspective:

- I grew up in and around a very large city
- There isn't a single WASP in my family going back as far as I know
- My extended family on both sides have been living in Albemarle county for around 200 years
- I went to UVA undergrad

I've known Charlottesville, and Central Virginial for my entire life, and I've lived in several major cities. If you're talking about Albemarle County, you'll find plenty of rednecks, one horse towns, and places the dazzling urbanites that are talking shit about Charlottesville wouldn't dream to set their Bruno Maglis in... However, the city of Charlottesville has more restaurants per capita than any city in the US, it has a thriving arts scene, a major research University that draws a lot of bright people from all over the world, a surprisingly large smattering of skilled professions (finance, music production, brewing, law, medicine, publishing, etc.), an extremely high quality of life, and no issues with racial, religious, or any other sort of intolerance you wouldn't run into in a major city. For a city of its size, it is the textbook definition of cosmopolitan.

I could literally spend hours detailing all of the pos of living in that city, the great public schools, the high level of diversity, the awesome public transit, every square inch of the Downtown Mall, but if you're going to let a Rebel Flag in the basement of a single Fraternity house paint your picture of the city as a whole, it's probably a lost cause anyway.
Let's not go nuts here.



:lol:

User avatar
yngblkgifted
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:57 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby yngblkgifted » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:14 pm

cornellbeez wrote:
vamedic03 wrote: (1) Way bigger metro area than Ithaca and only a little bit smaller than Ann Arbor

(2) You have a lot of hatred towards a school that you have essentially never been to or a town that you've never really spent any time in.


It's, population wise, something like less than 1/3 the size of Ann Arbor proper. Neither is a proper city, but AA still feels much bigger, and AA is much closer to other cities/towns. There are a lot more minorities and international students in Ithaca and Ann Arbor.

Not hatred, but I think the UVA trolling is ridiculous on TLS. Calling Charlottesville "cosmopolitan"? WTF. Maybe it's cosmopolitan if you grew up in bumbfuckville, which I guess maybe many UVA students did considering something like half the class is from Virginia.


I've lived in VA most of my life, will more than likely being attending UVA next fall for law school (which I am very excited about) and I completely agree with this. Charlottesville is cosmopolitan? No, it's fucking Charlottesville, no more and no less. Let's not get carried away.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Stringer Bell » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:22 pm

Kohinoor wrote:Having seen the projects and government assisted housing here, I certainly wouldn't generally describe Charlottesville as generally providing an extremely high quality of life.


So the QOL of life for folks living in govt. assisted housing in Cville is lower than in other places?

Also, that doesn't seem super relevant to the conversation since I doubt anyone that will attend UVA law plans on living in govt. assisted housing during their time there.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Stringer Bell » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:25 pm

Kohinoor wrote: On the issue of intolerance, things happen in Charlottesville that probably wouldn't happen as frequently in other places and when they happen the attitude is invariably one of resignation or shifting blame. A Confederate flag might have found its way into an NYU party but their response would probably have been closer to a vigil making a stand against intolerance than 'you can't prove that their intent was discriminatory' and 'it's not offensive get over it.'


Tolerance is relative though. Doesn't NYU send more grads to the ACLU than most other law schools? The ACLU would take the position that the dumbass fraternity can have confederate ping pong tables if they want.

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

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:29 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:Having seen the projects and government assisted housing here, I certainly wouldn't generally describe Charlottesville as generally providing an extremely high quality of life.


So the QOL of life for folks living in govt. assisted housing in Cville is lower than in other places?

Also, that doesn't seem super relevant to the conversation since I doubt anyone that will attend UVA law plans on living in govt. assisted housing during their time there.

There is quite a gulf between lower and extremely high. It's relevant to the conversation because (1) the average QoL informs the interactions and experiences you'll be having. A city with one billionaire surrounded by slums will have a very different feel than a city with a bunch of middle class people even if the average QoL is the same; (2) you will be interacting with the townies more often than you realize since several projects are less than 3 blocks away from Downtown, the Corner, Fashion Square Mall, etc.

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby bilbobaggins » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:33 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
Kohinoor wrote: On the issue of intolerance, things happen in Charlottesville that probably wouldn't happen as frequently in other places and when they happen the attitude is invariably one of resignation or shifting blame. A Confederate flag might have found its way into an NYU party but their response would probably have been closer to a vigil making a stand against intolerance than 'you can't prove that their intent was discriminatory' and 'it's not offensive get over it.'


Tolerance is relative though. Doesn't NYU send more grads to the ACLU than most other law schools? The ACLU would take the position that the dumbass fraternity can have confederate ping pong tables if they want.


Standing up for someone's right to say something offensive and supporting someone who says something offensive are two completely different things. This should be clear, no?

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Stringer Bell » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:38 pm

Kohinoor wrote:There is quite a gulf between lower and extremely high. It's relevant to the conversation because (1) the average QoL informs the interactions and experiences you'll be having. A city with one billionaire surrounded by slums will have a very different feel than a city with a bunch of middle class people even if the average QoL is the same; (2) you will be interacting with the townies more often than you realize since several projects are less than 3 blocks away from Downtown, the Corner, Fashion Square Mall, etc.


I can respect that. But is there really a higher proportion of Charlotesville citizens on welfare than at other top law schools? I would imagine the surrounding areas of Penn, Yale, UChi, Columbia and Berkeley have a higher proportion (might be wrong, just my impression).

I went to UG at a school that was in a really low income part of a major city, so maybe that affects the way I look at this.
Last edited by Stringer Bell on Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:40 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
Kohinoor wrote: On the issue of intolerance, things happen in Charlottesville that probably wouldn't happen as frequently in other places and when they happen the attitude is invariably one of resignation or shifting blame. A Confederate flag might have found its way into an NYU party but their response would probably have been closer to a vigil making a stand against intolerance than 'you can't prove that their intent was discriminatory' and 'it's not offensive get over it.'


Tolerance is relative though. Doesn't NYU send more grads to the ACLU than most other law schools? The ACLU would take the position that the dumbass fraternity can have confederate ping pong tables if they want.

Which is true and nobody is disagreeing with. Other communities would probably have had more of a problem with it.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Stringer Bell » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:43 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:Standing up for someone's right to say something offensive and supporting someone who says something offensive are two completely different things. This should be clear, no?


No disagreement here and after rereading Kohinoor's post I see responding directly to his post probably wasn't appropriate. That was more aimed at anyone ITT who seemed to feel that the school should take action (I'm pretty sure I saw someone post something along those lines). Putting a check for NYU and against UVA because more folks at NYU would be pissed about the tables doesn't seem unreasonable.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby sundance95 » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:54 pm

cornellbeez wrote:
vamedic03 wrote: So, how about you just renounce all your ridiculous earlier statements that were completely unfounded in fact?


What ridiculous statements? That Charlottesville is only cosmopolitan to those who grew up in bumbfuckville? I have lived in SF and New York, you aren't going to convince me otherwise. UVA is whiter than UM/Cornell as a whole. That doesn't sound that ridiculous to me.

I've lived in SF and LA and C'ville doesn't feel UNcosmopolitan, nor especially Southern. I also seriously, seriously doubt it's whiter than Cornell. The confirmation bias here feels like its working overtime (i.e., people expect non-NOVA Virginia to be racist, they see this photo, and their assumptions are therefore confirmed and UVA must have high levels of racism). I was blown away by some of the racist shit I've heard in SF.

Anyway, your repetition of 'bumbfuckville' has reached troll status. If that's your opinion, then as you say, no one can change it for you.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:25 pm

cornellbeez wrote:
vamedic03 wrote: So, how about you just renounce all your ridiculous earlier statements that were completely unfounded in fact?


What ridiculous statements? That Charlottesville is only cosmopolitan to those who grew up in bumbfuckville? I have lived in SF and New York, you aren't going to convince me otherwise. UVA is whiter than UM/Cornell as a whole. That doesn't sound that ridiculous to me.


You've become an anti-UVA troll. Congrats.

User avatar
unc0mm0n1
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:06 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby unc0mm0n1 » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:53 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
unc0mm0n1 wrote:you're a hundred percent right but our opinion is what we use when we decide where to go to law school. I don't like the symbol and that's my opinion, I also would not like to be in a place that glorifies a symbol like that. That's why I'm so glad so many current UVA students have spoken out against it. It's just weird to me, I lived in Germany for a few years and they almost act like 1939-45 didn't happen. Besides a few pockets of Neo-nazis you never see the swastika, there is no glorification of a regime that committed unspeakable atrocities, there is no calls for the Third Reich to rise again. Not saying the German mindset is perfect, limiting free speech and censoring books, but they have made a concerted effort to make sure the symbols of an embarrassing period aren't held up for praise.


I understand the comparison and why the confederate flag offends people, but there is quite a difference between that symbol and a swastika.

Also, Columbus did stuff that was way more jacked up than the confederacy and he gets a national holiday celebrating his accomplishments.


Explain please

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Stringer Bell » Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:37 am

unc0mm0n1 wrote:Explain please


The main difference is slavery vs. genocide. They are obviously both awful, but most people would consider genocide to be worse. Slavery is obviously an effed up chapter in human history, but it's not like the confederacy invented it. European, Asian and African nations had been enslaving each other for a long time.

The other difference is that the civil war was about alot more than slavery (I understand that Nazi Germany was about more than genocide against Jews as well, but the "other" aspects from the South's pov "state's rights, etc." are somewhat defensible). Some people that "rep" the confederate flag do so largely due to a history of distrust from the federal government and the northern states that have been passed down through generations due to carpet bagging, etc. Most people that fought for the South didn't own slaves and all the Northern soldiers certainly weren't forward thinking liberals. I have a segment of my family that's pretty backwards and southern. My great uncle who passed away 15 years ago voted Democrat no matter what due to the civil war even though he ideologically identified with the Republican party much more.

All that said, I completely understand why people (especially black people) would be offended by the confederate flag. If I was at a party were one was present, I'd like to think I'd say that it wasn't cool and that it would probably be a good idea to remove it. If someone I knew (or really someone I didn't know as well) was really offended by it I would definitely have their back. It's a bad symbol, I just personally don't think it's quite as bad as a swastika.

User avatar
unc0mm0n1
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:06 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby unc0mm0n1 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:05 am

Stringer Bell wrote:
unc0mm0n1 wrote:Explain please


The main difference is slavery vs. genocide. They are obviously both awful, but most people would consider genocide to be worse. Slavery is obviously an effed up chapter in human history, but it's not like the confederacy invented it. European, Asian and African nations had been enslaving each other for a long time.

The other difference is that the civil war was about alot more than slavery (I understand that Nazi Germany was about more than genocide against Jews as well, but the "other" aspects from the South's pov "state's rights, etc." are somewhat defensible). Some people that "rep" the confederate flag do so largely due to a history of distrust from the federal government and the northern states that have been passed down through generations due to carpet bagging, etc. Most people that fought for the South didn't own slaves and all the Northern soldiers certainly weren't forward thinking liberals. I have a segment of my family that's pretty backwards and southern. My great uncle who passed away 15 years ago voted Democrat no matter what due to the civil war even though he ideologically identified with the Republican party much more.

All that said, I completely understand why people (especially black people) would be offended by the confederate flag. If I was at a party were one was present, I'd like to think I'd say that it wasn't cool and that it would probably be a good idea to remove it. If someone I knew (or really someone I didn't know as well) was really offended by it I would definitely have their back. It's a bad symbol, I just personally don't think it's quite as bad as a swastika.



Seriously man. Ok lets break down your arguments by points I think that makes it easier.

First point: Attempted Genocide is worse than slavery. This is a matter of taste I guess but I couldn't disagree with you more. Attempted Genocide for 4-6 yrs is terrible but Slavery lasted for more than 150yrs. There was a system put into place to make a group of people feel inferior. They were bred and killed if they showed too much intelligence. There was no hiding from your skin color like some Jews could hide from their ethnicity. Plus after WWII the amount of support that were given to these people directly after the atrocities were immense. A country was formed just for them, there was a wide spread support system and many people were given reparations. Also the World as a whole and the abusive country in particular shunned the practice and did everything in their power to honor their tragedy. There are no monuments to great Nazi leaders. There is no pride in the horrible acts they committed. Whereas slavery is still felt today. Black families have never recovered from slavery and the forced abolishment of it. Many in the south didn't want this to happen and as soon as reconstruction ended they started the practice back up just with out shackles (Jim Crow, lynching etc) while the government who was supposed to protect blacks allowed it to happen. Even court ruling such as Plessy reaffirmed blacks were second class citizens please show me this in Germany post 1945. Genocide was terrible for the group of people who had to endure it. Slavery was terrible for generations and generations and generations and generations of people.

Second Point: Americans didn't invent slavery. Ok this point is just ridiculous and I'm not sure what you are attempting to prove by even saying it. So what are you saying Germans invented genocide thus it's ok? First off Germany didn't invent genocide. They speak of genocides in the bible (ironically by Jews) and early Greek empires as well as the Assyrians not to mention the Chinese, Romans, the Mongolians, Native Americans,Vietnamese, Australians and many more all before WWII. But even if Germany did "invent" genocide how does that make it any more or any less terrible?

Third Point: The civil war was about a lot more than slavery. For real man? You're going to law school do you think that WWII was just a ploy to kill Jews. I would argue that the Civil War had much more to do with slavery than WWII had to do with genocide. I don't want to go through a history lesson but the truth is the Jews were a scape goat for some of the serious issues that Germany faced. Some of those issues were actually good points. Not everything the Nazi's stood for was bad. They believed in things like anti-communism, nationalism, plus they fought against the universally accepted notion that the Treaty of Versailles was completely unfair. Many of these things Americans would fight for if in that situation. This is exactly why we don't set up treaties like this today because it breeds radicalism.

Fourth point: Most people didn't own slaves. This is true but most people supported the system. The people in the south who didn't own slaves wanted to get wealthy and own a plantation so they could own slaves. Whereas I would argue that many people in German had no natural distrust or dislike for Jews. The time period was very bad in Germany the horrible treaty compounded with the great depression created an environment that was perfect for genocide. The Germans needed a scapegoat to blame and the Jews were there. If blacks had came to Germany and owned many shops and stores they would have been the main target of the genocide.

Fifth point: Well people rep it for different reasons. In my personal opinion this is the most horrific statement you made. Just because someone "reps" something for one reason doesn't mean it's not interpreted in another way. I.e. you can come to my house in a white t-shirt with the letters KKK on it and say it means kindness, karma, and kittens but that's not how I'm going to take it. Many black, minority and every day (non traitorous) American people in this country are appalled by the rebel flag. When you wear it you know you're going to exude a certain persona. Most people know it's offensive but they just don't care. The only reason people don't wear the swastika is because it's socially taboo. Many people who looked like Jerry Seinfeld were killed, that could be most Americans brother, or dad, or son. Slavery only impacted a minority who in many parts of the south are still openly viewed as inferior. They revel in this past even though it's horrible. They build monuments to men who believed and spoke some of the most hateful, racist things ever spoken. They honor people who fought and died for slavery and segregation. And just because some people don't know the past of that flag and what it stood for I'm supposed to give them a pass. You can do that but as a proud black man who will have to raise his child in this country I will never overlook the horrible past that "flag" represents.

..... climbs down from soapbox.

So anybody else going to UVA's ASW?

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Stringer Bell » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:09 pm

You make some good points. The easiest aspect for me to defend is the fact that most people of any race in any society view genocide as a worse practice than slavery. If given the choice between doing a Scott Bakula style Quantum Leap (hope this reference isn't too dated) into the body of a slave on a plantation in the South during the 1800's or someone in a Nazi concentration camp, I think most people are going to choose the former. If the confederacy had viewed black people as a race that needed to be wiped off the planet and ran concentration camps like the Nazi's did during the holocaust, I think there would be the result you are looking for of it being a borderline unmentionable time in American history. I don't think it's solely non black people as well that feel this way. Adrian Peterson's comment comparing the NFL player's labor agreement to modern day slavery and the reaction to it sort of demonstrates this. AP has definitely caught some crap for it, but it's not like there has been an outstanding level of vitriol from black journalists/blog commenters/etc. (or if there has I haven't really come across it). It would probably take a more serious situation for a high profile Jew to compare something to a modern day holocaust and not get completely lambasted for it. Jalen Rose referred to Grant Hill and other black players as Uncle Tom's because they went to Duke to play basketball. I'm not aware of a similar Holocaust derived statement to represent a Jew who sells out their ethnicity, but the reaction would not be the same if someone Jewish used it in the same context Jalen did.

A lot of the other things we seem to disagree on I think stem more from the degree we think that things should be viewed in context. If you think Thomas Jefferson was a sack of crap because he owned slaves and anything positive he did should be written out of American history because he was a slave owner, I can understand where you come from but I personally don’t agree. Christopher Columbus was a really bad guy but still gets a day celebrating his marine accomplishment. I don’t advocate taking that away from him either. I think Michael Vick can sort of serve as a frame of reference for how I choose to view context. Some people feel that what Vick did is completely unforgivable and are offended by the broadcasters, journalists, and fans that celebrated his football accomplishments last year. I have a dog and think what he did was completely deplorable. However I do view it in the context of the environment he grew up in and think that he did his time, seems remorseful and don’t have a problem with people celebrating his football accomplishments. I’m aware there are a couple of distinctions here, the first being that Vick has demonstrated remorse. I’m sure plenty of people involved with the confederacy would have shown remorse as well if they would have gone through a similar rehabilitation process. The other distinction is that there is an obvious difference between humans and dogs. But that gets back to my original point that atrocious actions have a sliding scale. Thinking its okay to run a dog fighting ring, own a human as property and that a race of people needs to be exterminated are all truly, truly heinous. But I think the degree to which most people view how awful they are occurs in the order I listed them.

Also, I'm not saying that the confederate flag shouldn't be even more taboo than it already is. I agree with you there. My main point was saying that comparing the confederate flag to a swastika isn't an apples to apples comparison.

User avatar
unc0mm0n1
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:06 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby unc0mm0n1 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:33 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:You make some good points. The easiest aspect for me to defend is the fact that most people of any race in any society view genocide as a worse practice than slavery. If given the choice between doing a Scott Bakula style Quantum Leap (hope this reference isn't too dated) into the body of a slave on a plantation in the South during the 1800's or someone in a Nazi concentration camp, I think most people are going to choose the former. If the confederacy had viewed black people as a race that needed to be wiped off the planet and ran concentration camps like the Nazi's did during the holocaust, I think there would be the result you are looking for of it being a borderline unmentionable time in American history. I don't think it's solely non black people as well that feel this way. Adrian Peterson's comment comparing the NFL player's labor agreement to modern day slavery and the reaction to it sort of demonstrates this. AP has definitely caught some crap for it, but it's not like there has been an outstanding level of vitriol from black journalists/blog commenters/etc. (or if there has I haven't really come across it). It would probably take a more serious situation for a high profile Jew to compare something to a modern day holocaust and not get completely lambasted for it. Jalen Rose referred to Grant Hill and other black players as Uncle Tom's because they went to Duke to play basketball. I'm not aware of a similar Holocaust derived statement to represent a Jew who sells out their ethnicity, but the reaction would not be the same if someone Jewish used it in the same context Jalen did.

A lot of the other things we seem to disagree on I think stem more from the degree we think that things should be viewed in context. If you think Thomas Jefferson was a sack of crap because he owned slaves and anything positive he did should be written out of American history because he was a slave owner, I can understand where you come from but I personally don’t agree. Christopher Columbus was a really bad guy but still gets a day celebrating his marine accomplishment. I don’t advocate taking that away from him either. I think Michael Vick can sort of serve as a frame of reference for how I choose to view context. Some people feel that what Vick did is completely unforgivable and are offended by the broadcasters, journalists, and fans that celebrated his football accomplishments last year. I have a dog and think what he did was completely deplorable. However I do view it in the context of the environment he grew up in and think that he did his time, seems remorseful and don’t have a problem with people celebrating his football accomplishments. I’m aware there are a couple of distinctions here, the first being that Vick has demonstrated remorse. I’m sure plenty of people involved with the confederacy would have shown remorse as well if they would have gone through a similar rehabilitation process. The other distinction is that there is an obvious difference between humans and dogs. But that gets back to my original point that atrocious actions have a sliding scale. Thinking its okay to run a dog fighting ring, own a human as property and that a race of people needs to be exterminated are all truly, truly heinous. But I think the degree to which most people view how awful they are occurs in the order I listed them.

Also, I'm not saying that the confederate flag shouldn't be even more taboo than it already is. I agree with you there. My main point was saying that comparing the confederate flag to a swastika isn't an apples to apples comparison.


Before you make a choice on rather you'd be a slave or be in a concentration camp I think you should have a little more facts on slavery. It wasn't a job and you go to the fields then you retire for the night. You were beaten for 60yrs until you couldn't work anymore. In which case you could be killed. You worked 12hrs or more a day. You saw your wife raped. You saw your kids sold. You couldn't learn. You were whipped. FOR SIXTY YEARS!!!!!!!!! I don't know anybody who would rather have that "life" over just about anything. Esp if you grew up in the 21st century. If I had the choice I'd most definitely choose a concentration camp. It's not a nice place to be, in fact it's terrible but here's the difference the camps started in roughly in 33 but the systematic killing didn't pick up until 1939. If you survived from 1939 until 1944 ish you got out. Those were a terrible 5yrs and I don't want to make light of it but I'd take my chances with those 5 yrs instead of seeing my family enslaved for my entire life and knowing my kids would go through the same thing. I don't understand how that is even a choice. I hate to inject race into things but the truth is the genocide in Rwanda was way more worse and brutal. But everyone talks about WWII because it was white people. If slavery was against Caucasians it would be a national tragedy. Take how the Americans fought in WWII. They firebombed both Europe and Japan but the Europe targets were precise to destroy military targets like Dresden. In Japan (brown people) they used full incendiary bombs that were meant to burn as much as possible on cities and atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousand of civilians, this would have never happened against white people in Europe. Its just the way the world is. Why do you think when a white girl is missing it's front page news. Black girls go missing too nobody cares. The year Columbine happened. 45 people were murdered over a 5 month period in my community of 40,000. There was no outcry and people coming to remember the fallen. White life has always been treated as more scared than black life in America and that plays into how the Swastika and The Rebel flag are viewed. If you can't acknowledge that then we will just have to agree to disagree.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby Stringer Bell » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:27 pm

It's been awhile since I've really read anything about slavery in America just before the civil war, so maybe my interpretation of it is inaccurate. I intentionally mentioned the plantation in my Quantum Leap example because it was typically the worst existence for a slave in the South. Plenty of slaves were owned in much smaller numbers and I believe were not subjected to the same amount of beatings and whippings that slaves on plantations were. And as I understood it, even on plantations where there were alot more beatings, it was slaves that rebelled in some way that took the brunt of them and were made an example of. You mention how bad seeing a family member sold would be, but is that worse than seeing a family member put in a gas chamber? I get where you're coming from that going through a torurous existence for 5 years where you have a really good chance of dying, but if you do survive you can try to rebuild your life is better than a entire lifetime of constant beatings. That wasn't my impression of what slavery was guaranteed to entail, but maybe I'm wrong.

As far as fire bombing in Germany vs. dropping nukes in Japan, there is quite a bit of controversy and conspiracy theory as to how much of a military target Dresden really was. As a coincidental sidenote, I actually started re-reading Slaughterhouse 5 a few nights ago.

I agree with you 100% that "white people" genocide gets more attention in this country than Asian or African genocide.

I also agree with you to an extent regarding crimes against white people getting more attention. This definitely does happen, but what you described with Columbine occurs because crimes that are somewhat unexpected are easier to sensationalize. This is why death by shark attack gets more coverage than a drowning. A middle class teen disappearing on spring break can be sensationalized regardless of their race. There was a ton of coverage about the Baylor player that was killed by his teammate.
Last edited by Stringer Bell on Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

barry
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:30 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby barry » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:44 pm

[/quote]

Before you make a choice on rather you'd be a slave or be in a concentration camp I think you should have a little more facts on slavery. It wasn't a job and you go to the fields then you retire for the night. You were beaten for 60yrs until you couldn't work anymore. In which case you could be killed. You worked 12hrs or more a day. You saw your wife raped. You saw your kids sold. You couldn't learn. You were whipped. FOR SIXTY YEARS!!!!!!!!! I don't know anybody who would rather have that "life" over just about anything. Esp if you grew up in the 21st century. If I had the choice I'd most definitely choose a concentration camp. It's not a nice place to be, in fact it's terrible but here's the difference the camps started in roughly in 33 but the systematic killing didn't pick up until 1939. If you survived from 1939 until 1944 ish you got out. Those were a terrible 5yrs and I don't want to make light of it but I'd take my chances with those 5 yrs instead of seeing my family enslaved for my entire life and knowing my kids would go through the same thing. I don't understand how that is even a choice. I hate to inject race into things but the truth is the genocide in Rwanda was way more worse and brutal. But everyone talks about WWII because it was white people. If slavery was against Caucasians it would be a national tragedy. Take how the Americans fought in WWII. They firebombed both Europe and Japan but the Europe targets were precise to destroy military targets like Dresden. In Japan (brown people) they used full incendiary bombs that were meant to burn as much as possible on cities and atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousand of civilians, this would have never happened against white people in Europe. Its just the way the world is. Why do you think when a white girl is missing it's front page news. Black girls go missing too nobody cares. The year Columbine happened. 45 people were murdered over a 5 month period in my community of 40,000. There was no outcry and people coming to remember the fallen. White life has always been treated as more scared than black life in America and that plays into how the Swastika and The Rebel flag are viewed. If you can't acknowledge that then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[/quote]
I understand your point of view but you do sound almost hateful of whites. More people died in the dresden bombings than any other bombing in WWII, if White people wanted to kill the more Japanese they would have nuked Tokyo. The nuke bombings were used b/c the Japanese were fanatical and needed a pretty big reason to surrender. The reason people aren't as sensitive to ghetto violence is b/c usually it's gangbangers killing gangbangers ... when a innocent young girl or something dies it is on the news and people care.... 800,000 people were killed in the Rwanda genocide so it was not worse than the holocaust ( i agree we should have helped, but i disagree that we didn't help cause they were black) and let's remember too the 20,000,000+ that died under Stalin and others in the Soviet Union and they also had a system of white slavery (read the Gulag Archipelago) and no one did anything and no one usually considers the hammer and sickle as offensive as the nazi flag either even though it was white people suffering... the Nazi and the Japanese would have taken over the world if we didn't go to war that's why we needed to get involved

To be honest slavery was a horrible institution but before the 19th century it was the norm and every race has suffered under some form of it at some point white christians were slaves in North Africa for a couple hundred years .... the thing is that the holocaust only lasted 6 years or whatever but if it had gone on even a quarter as long as American slavery there would be no jews left to ever recover from its effect.. Genocide is far more insidious since its goal is actually to wipe a race from the planet slavery in a way is the opposite slave owners want to breed as many slaves as they can (admittedly its a self serving f***ed up reason but it indicates more economic rather than hateful reasons and guarantees a people won't die out).... Most people would rather work the fields with a beating or have their kids sold off to farm than watch your family be sent to the gas chamber and turned into a lamp shade afterwards basically dooming any hope of your lineage continuing ... besides many slave owners were not nearly as cruel as you describe and did educate their slaves and tried to treat them well (obviously you can't be treated well under slavery but there are certainly degrees) There wasn't really any Nazis at bergen belsen that weren't gonna exterminate you.

paulinaporizkova
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby paulinaporizkova » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:30 pm

i'm currently visiting the LS. haven't seen even a remote hint of hostility toward AA students anywhere - in fact, precisely the opposite. and no confederate flags.

/thread

silver7
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Any UVA Law Students Want to Weigh In On This?

Postby silver7 » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:16 pm

I'm from VA and I'll say that the state has several cultural identities ranging from old southern money to a large population of immigrants. As far as the confederate flag goes, it's definitely a cultural thing and should not be taken too harshly (although I know this is not easy to do).




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AMajorChord, Wildcats17 and 2 guests