Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
a9a

Why is my race excluded?

Recommended Posts

you mixing up your nationalities with your ethnicities a bit I think. they not the same thing.

example

there are native americans. there is no USA ethnicity but there are USA nationals. the USA is not old enough to have evolved its own distinct ethnicity to the point where the people are recognizable as a distinct homogenous group separate from other ethnic groups

+

there is a German nation. and a Gerrnanic ethnicity. same England. once upon a time there were Bretons, Picts, Angles, Saxons and Normans. over a 1000 years they evolve into a distinct ethnic group - English. ethnicity devolve mostly from culture and territory. physiology do a play a part in this as well (as a result of interbreeding) but is minor component compared to the others

distinct ethnic groups evolve/develop faster in smaller territories. like the English evolve faster into English than the Germans into Germans bc the English live on a island.Jamaicans as a ethnicity evolve even faster than the English bc where they live is smaller and less populated. is how that goes 

USA will probably take about 3000 years. more even maybe to evolve to the same point. bc of the size of the territory

+

when we comfortable in our own skins (this most apparent in peoples from well established homogeneous ethnic groups within delineated territories. or are members of the dominant ethnic group within a shared territory) then we often cant see what all the fuss is about

the comfortable argument goes that we all the same underneath. which is true. we all the same underneath with all mammals. which is true. we all the same underneath with most other kinds of animals as well. which is true. is reductive this argument. all the way down to nothing. underneath we all one with the universe. which is true

by reasoning this way it allow us to pick any arbitrary point to stop as it suits us. at the point that most suits us. that makes us feel most comfortable

if we are going to pick a point at which to stop then pick the starting point which is above the skin and stop there. then deal with it from that point. recognize the differences. accept them. accept that we not all same - ethnically or culturally. and live with it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry 16, I didn't mix up ethnicites with nationalities, why should I ever do such a stupid thing? I said basically the same as you  in your post but my english skills are too poor to say it more efficietly. And for the life of me the much needed term ethnicity just escaped me when I was about to post.

About your ethnicity theory, yes, you're almost corrrect with that. Of course it always depends on when you start looking at the development of a certain race/ethnic group. Basically Germans were an aryan tribe who spawned from the indian subcontinent. Angles and Saxons developed later. They were a mix of norman and and german tribes and met with the picts, bretons and the proper normans on the british island and mixed their genes even further. I guess around that time whole europe was just a big whorehouse. :smileyhappy:

And you're right about the English and Germans: the english these days have a much smaller gene pool to exploit and are kinda finished with their development (narrow shoulders, wide hips, pinkish skin, horse dentition) while the Germans are primitives and still in the making. A sign of that is that Germany is only a political term to describe the country. We  call ourselves Deutschland, based on the tribe of teutons (tysk in normannic languages). The teuton people lived in the northern parts of germany and were the first to have contact with our northern neighbours. While the Alemans lived more to the south and made the first contact with our southern neighbors. That's why  in most latin countries (italy, france, spain) germany is known as Alemannia, Allemagne ... All of them probably belonged to the much bigger mother tribe of what was known as germans. So germans were, and still are, as almost all european indegenous ppl just a huge mish-mash.

About the USA you are 100% correct. Ethnologically they are now in a period of development europe was at around 200 - 600 a.d.

That's why I always get nervous twitches when I hear useless terms such as 'African American' or 'Puerto Rican' being used to describe an ethnicity. On the whole american continent there are 3 indegenous ethnological groups: Eskimo (poilitically incorrect: Inuit), native americans (politically incorrect:  Indians) and indios. That's roughly it. Although they all arrived on american soil in different migration periods at times when the Bering strait was still passable on foot they can be called as of different ethnicity now.

Similar in Africa: there are so many different tribes and nations that one can say they are of different ethnicity. From kinda brownish skin in the southern parts to very black in the central regions. But whatever they are, they are surely not African Americans. :smileyvery-happy:

 

PS: never call someone from Mumbai an Indian, they might be offended and insist on being called native Americans.

Mwuuuuuuhahahahahhaaarrrrr. :smileylol::smileyvery-happy::smileyhappy::smileywink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry. I am not able to understand sometimes what others mean. so I just go with what I think they said and when wrong then am happy to be corrected (:

+

is really interesting human society to me. how it forms and reforms pretty much constantly. civilizations grow and blossom and then fade away. and the cycle repeats. each cycle is a bit different from the last. and smaller cycles within the bigger cycles all the way down to hamlet and village sizes in many cases

like in England. from outside their borders we (from other groups) see them all as the same. same like we see Chinese and Danes etc as all the same when we view them as a whole from the outside

yet when we go into them up close then is lots of division. like Manchunians different from Liverpudlians and Cockneys. even tho they share lots of common traits and cultural practices and subscribe to these themselves. they broadly define it altogether as English. like the group makes these definitions for themselves. and we accept 

is the self-defining I think that plays an important role in all this. and our acceptance of this

+

African-American, Irish-American, Kentuckian, Texan, etc is no different from Cockney and Liverpudlian at the same level.  they smaller groups within a larger group. this never going to change. is our way as humans. is also our way to define/grow layers on top of this. like English, Chinese, Russian, Turk, etc

the difference between Texan and Irish-American is that the first is territory based. the second is not. the Irish-American is homeless. like they don't have a delineated home territory within the larger territorial boundaries like Texans or Californians do

+

one of the faults we have as humans generally is that at the deepest levels of our animal brain we actual don't like homeless groups. we perceive them as a threat. they threaten our own existence. bc they have to live somewhere to survive. if we got a vast territory then we can share it. but even then we do it grudgingly and only if we cant fight them offor neutralize them as a threat in some way

we fight in different ways depending on the circumstance. straight out war leading to subjugation or depletion. or if they are to strong to defeat outright then assimilation

the other way is accommodation. and we do that by evolving together to a higher level. like into English, German, Jamaican.etc. it just takes a long time this way. but is in the end the most effective. to get to that point tho we have to be accommodating of each others differences. if we aren't then subjugation. assimilation. depletion  

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the other way is accommodation. and we do that by evolving together to a higher level. like into English, German, Jamaican.etc. it just takes a long time this way. but is in the end the most effective. to get to that point tho we have to be accommodating of each others differences. if we aren't then subjugation. assimilation. depletion 

Yeah, zacly. Unfortunately tho, the OP and most ppl in this thread are not interested in our socio-ethno discussion but are looking for good skins/shapes for the African-American and Puerto Rican race. All I stated was there is no such thing. Is impossible by definition and therefor not available in SL. It's indeed easier to create a Martian, a Demon, a Werewolf, a Fairie, a Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have changed my mind on what the starter avs should be.. now i say simple stick figures.. you pick the color... then you get to go inworld and build your  av from all sorts of the items already in your library. perhaps a LM to a bunch of stores...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

One of the problems with that is that too many people want instant gratification.

And as simple as you are trying to make it sound, that is still a lot of work.

Even for seasoned Residents, editing our shapes can be very tedious work.

You did catch the part where I added functionality to let people pick from a set of pre-made body shapes, right? You don't need to do the tedious work if editing shape sliders, and if you want to the work is much easier when you're starting from a base that is already similar to your goal.

What I describe is basically a simplified version of what many videogames already offer, allowing people to spend as much or as little time customizing their avatar as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I would like to point out there is only one RACE on this planet.. The human race. The word you are looking for is ethnicity.  Are you going to say all black people are from Africa? what about Haitians? or Dominicans? Are all white people from England?

I wish you jsut stop forcing you liberal point of view on other people in EVERY topic on this forum.  RACE is what we call the different ethnicities from where I come from, whether you like it not.  African Americans is what we usually call ourselves in american DUE to our african ansesty.  It may not makes sense to you (and I can understand why, since not all Black people come from African), but that doesn't mean we should stop using the term.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

the other way is accommodation. and we do that by evolving together to a higher level. like into English, German, Jamaican.etc. it just takes a long time this way. but is in the end the most effective. to get to that point tho we have to be accommodating of each others differences. if we aren't then subjugation. assimilation. depletion 

Yeah, zacly. Unfortunately tho, the OP and most ppl in this thread are not interested in our socio-ethno discussion but are looking for good skins/shapes for the African-American and Puerto Rican race. All I stated was there is no such thing. Is impossible by definition and therefor not available in SL. It's indeed easier to create a Martian, a Demon, a Werewolf, a Fairie, a Whatever.

yes true that. well is not impossible impossible but is really difficult. bc of the basic shape we stuck with. can do a lot to the shape. but cant do a lot with it. in terms of ethnicity/physiology

like RL is the face that is the most recognizable physiological/ethnic distinguisher. body height/mass/size not so much

+

on this. in SL is mostly to do with the nose. more specific the nostrils. can make them wider and that's about it. bulbous and bridge and the others helps a bit. but can only finish with a shark nose pretty much. when try to go beyond the classic roman nose

if we had just one more slider: nostril height. then would make all the difference. we be able then to craft just about any human physiological facial look. combined with skin textures then would be pretty much perfect I think 

+

edit add: bc I forget to address the important point you raising

definition is best done by self. like we self-define what we think is the definition of Puerto Rican, African, Roman, Asian, etc. we define it for ourselves when we make our avatar. it may not be what someone else may think is correct. but that's not important. is what we think about it for ourselves that is important when we looking at our own avatar    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the term is misleading.

In my opinion its used by people who want to force a gab between humans and who want to be seen as somewhat different...also by a lot people who are racist by themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


honerken wrote:

I wish you jsut stop forcing you liberal point of view on other people in EVERY topic on this forum.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

______________________________________________________________________________

honerken wrote:

  African Americans is what we usually call ourselves in american DUE to our african ansesty.  It may not makes sense to you (and I can understand why, since not all Black people come from African), but that doesn't mean we should stop using the term.


 

Actually, not all black people use the term.. I have heard  Haitian American and Dominican American as well.

So, how many generations does it take before you just call yourself American?

My Grandparents are from Ireland and England.. I do NOT call myself an Irish/English American. I am simply an American.


honerken wrote:

 

  RACE is what we call the different ethnicities from where I come from, whether you like it not.

 

 

It doesn't matter whether i like it or not. The terminology is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

One of the problems with that is that too many people want instant gratification.

And as simple as you are trying to make it sound, that is still a lot of work.

Even for seasoned Residents, editing our shapes can be very tedious work.

You did catch the part where I added functionality to let people pick from a set of pre-made body shapes, right? You don't need to do the tedious work if editing shape sliders, and if you want to the work is much easier when you're starting from a base that is already similar to your goal.

What I describe is basically a simplified version of what many videogames already offer, allowing people to spend as much or as little time customizing their avatar as possible.

/me goes back and re-reads.

yes, you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to get all into the whole subject in a bad way or anything..but just thought i would ask opinions on somthing that was mentioned a couple of years back..

is it not a new theory that humans are thought to have come from two continents now rather than one?

asia and africa?

just curious on what others may have heard on this is all??or thought about it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:

not to get all into the whole subject in a bad way or anything..but just thought i would ask opinions on somthing that was mentioned a couple of years back..

is it not a new theory that humans are thought to have come from two continents now rather than one?

asia and africa?

just curious on what others may have heard on this is all??or thought about it?

 

As far as I understand it, multi-regional theories have competed with the 'out of Africa' theory ever since Descent of Man was published (and mybe even before). Single origin is the current leading theory, but there is tentative evidence of other parallel populations. So it's not really a new idea, more an old one that keeps coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:

not to get all into the whole subject in a bad way or anything..but just thought i would ask opinions on somthing that was mentioned a couple of years back..

is it not a new theory that humans are thought to have come from two continents now rather than one?

asia and africa?

just curious on what others may have heard on this is all??or thought about it?

 

is feasible. altho it don't get past the common ancestor

like this cow + this fish = this human baby

so is feasible that if put the same cow and the same fish in two different places with similar environments then can produce the same baby

is then back to the ancestor question. who was the ancestor of the cow and the fish?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic:  LL is missing some sales potential if they don't include a wide variety of looks on their "pick your first avatar page."

Simply: a lot of folks are going to be newbs for days or weeks before they do much with their look so more variety in the look of the first page avis would seem a bit more welcoming to a lot of folks.   It is hard to get started in SL under the best of circumstances and if things are going poorly and your avi looks foreign to you, you have one more reason to never come back.

Someone mentioned that more choices are available after you get logged in--some newbs will likely find those early, but many will spend their time learning to walk, talk, or go places before they start to explore alternative avi choices. There are some folks still coming into SL for things like classes or meetings without any intention of staying long-term.  Most will leave anyway, but some who would have stayed could easily be turned off by a lack of avi that looks kind of like them.  More variety on the first time screen would be helpful to attracting long-term users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

not to get all into the whole subject in a bad way or anything..but just thought i would ask opinions on somthing that was mentioned a couple of years back..

is it not a new theory that humans are thought to have come from two continents now rather than one?

asia and africa?

just curious on what others may have heard on this is all??or thought about it?

 

is feasible. altho it don't get past the common ancestor

like this cow + this fish = this human baby

so is feasible that if put the same cow and the same fish in two different places with similar environments then can produce the same baby

is then back to the ancestor question. who was the ancestor of the cow and the fish?

 

i find it such an interesting subject..i wish we had a thread going on about it..maybe one wil pop up in general soon hehehehe

i'll just reply and try not to be too derailing..but would like to respond to you what i think could be possible.. 

 

Aaaanyways..

myself..I don't think it was a new species being born each step we took..

I think it was adapting to the changes each step as we still do today..

I think it's more possible to put the same types of fish or same species of fish in more costal spots than it would be to put two different species in different spots..Then them find each other and make the same mirical happen more than enough times for this new species to survive..Then to only repeat it again later in it's next step up the ladder..

i think it is more possible there were more landing spots than them making this mirical birth happen one time..

especially with asia and africa's coast's being nieghbors in the same cove and so close together at that time period...

 

the same type of fish in similar enough enviroments to survive..

they were so close together that it compares to the U.S gulf coast..you can pretty much catch the same fish off the east cosst of florida as you can the whole gulf coast  all the way to texas =)

it's like being in the same pond water and saying the fish only came out on one side of the pond..

i think if they want to find some missing link..that they won't find it on land..i think they will have to go swimming for it hehehehe

 

because if we look at all the similar looking species to man but so far away from the genetic code..this mirical of making a new species would have had to happen so much that the odds of it happening would not be as low as we are told they are..it wouldn't be a mirical..it would be common and we would notice it still today..

where we know there had to be more than one species of fish that worked it's way to shore..

this fish coming out of water still happens today..

take a look at  the walking catfish..

which happens to mainly exist in asia and the african congo..

i thought that was kind of cool hehehehe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just Asia and Africa glued together once. When the earth was still young there was only one continent. Cool eh?

I guess this super continent was called Pangaea but since it was so early and hardly anyone around at that time we can only guess about the name. :smileysurprised:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even in the Bible. something happens which kinda don't get mentioned much

is Adam and Eve. and they have Cain and Abel. then Cain kills Abel and gets booted out. but Cain get a wife from these other people that was there. the Nod people what lived in the land to the east of Eden. Genesis 4: 16-17

 

i think this the basis for the Africa + Asia concept. Asia being to the east of Africa

then Adam and Eve have another son after. Seth. he take a wife as well. but is not said where from. but if was no one else in Eden and there wasn't. then maybe she was a Nod person as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Orca Flotta wrote:

It wasn't just Asia and Africa glued together once. When the earth was still young there was only one continent. Cool eh?

I guess this super continent was called
but since it was so early and hardly anyone around at that time we can only guess about the name. :smileysurprised:

 i was basically just saying they shared a cove most of the time..kind of like the gulf coast...

through permian and triassic and jurassic and cretaceous periods..

that there was probably more landing spots than just one continents..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:

even in the Bible. something happens which kinda don't get mentioned much

is Adam and Eve. and they have Cain and Abel. then Cain kills Abel and gets booted out. but Cain get a wife from these other people that was there. the Nod people what lived in the land to the east of Eden. Genesis 4: 16-17

 

i think this the basis for the Africa + Asia concept. Asia being to the east of Africa

then Adam and Eve have another son after. Seth. he take a wife as well. but is not said where from. but if was no one else in Eden and there wasn't. then maybe she was a Nod person as well

i just look at how much those two populations have moved around over the lands..

look at asia for instance..one of the largest populations in the world..not just where asia is..

i see it  in the islands on that side of the world and americas in the natives..

Native americans hold strong asian features..from north in canada all the way to south america..

hawaii and the other islands..i see it in myself and my family..

 

and on the other side looking at those islands other and places north more african features on that side and those islands..

 

it's pretty wild stuffs  hehehehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:


16 wrote:

even in the Bible. something happens which kinda don't get mentioned much

is Adam and Eve. and they have Cain and Abel. then Cain kills Abel and gets booted out. but Cain get a wife from these other people that was there. the Nod people what lived in the land to the east of Eden. Genesis 4: 16-17

 

i think this the basis for the Africa + Asia concept. Asia being to the east of Africa

then Adam and Eve have another son after. Seth. he take a wife as well. but is not said where from. but if was no one else in Eden and there wasn't. then maybe she was a Nod person as well

i just look at how much those two populations have moved around over the lands..

look at asia for instance..one of the largest populations in the world..not just where asia is..

i see it  in the islands on that side of the world and americas in the natives..

Native americans hold strong asian features..from north in canada all the way to south america..

hawaii and the other islands..i see it in myself and my family..

 

and on the other side looking at those islands other and places north more african features on that side and those islands..

 

it's pretty wild stuffs  hehehehe

yes I find interesting as well. like Orca say must have been all one land mass once. or close to. like if look at Australia Aborigine. they are ancient people since the dawn. they quite different from Pacific people

Pacific people spread thru ocean vovages. my own people the same. is some debate about did we spread from the east (Americas)  or from the west (Asia). is probably a mix of both. but mostly from the west I think bc of the winds. at least to the South Pacific

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...