Not allowed to work because of my avatar?

No one was asked to change ethnicity that I know of or that I witnessed, in the Berlin sim.

In fact I saw a few people running around in mall gear who were not even approached...The sim staff are not as unbending as that thread made them seem, and seemed to deal with rudeness with patience and a sense of humor, while I was there to see it anyway.

Yep! But human nature being what it is, there will, I suppose, always be some who DO cry wolf. Being disadvantaged, or the victim of discrimination, is not a passport to saintliness, unfortunately. But, as you say, to suggest that there is no discrimination because there are those who abuse the system, or "cry wolf," is faulty logic.

After all, the poor boy's sheep WERE eaten, weren't they?


LOL! Well, a girl can dream . . .

the fashion leaves something to be desired...

True.

First thing I'd do is organize a little trip for the whole bunch of us to Pixel Dolls and Armidi . . .

That Supreme Court would ROCK.

Although I kind of like the robes but then I like the old Quaker outfits, too. Everyone needs a LBD.

I don't have a major problem with people banning non-humans from their sim. It annoys me, slightly, yes, but all it means is that I just won't go there.

Have you read the recent study by Robert Putnam which found that the more diversity in an area the less trust? Not just trust between ethnic groups, but trust within ethnic groups.

And there is no problem with people expressing their individuality as part of their cultural make up, unless others are forced to accept it against their will. (Ignoring the fact that some cultures are better than others. I am not a cultural relativist.)

On the other hand, Leicester (in the UK) has been lauded as a role model for communities with diverse ethnic groups. The mix of diffrent groups is actually balanced in terms of population and business and influence in management of municipal affairs.

Proclaiming that "some cultures are better than others" would, of course, make you persona non grata in such a rich and vibrant community. I actually didnt think that people who were so xenophobic and had such a superiority complex actually would state such an opinion even in this forum.

I would rather it WAS stated 'even in this forum' or any other place, actually. I would rather know exactly how someone truly feels, rather than dance around it. Even if it is directly opposite of my own beliefs, or directly against me, as a person, for that matter. I would rather know.

No, I haven't Chris. Thanks for pointing it out: I'll look it up.

I suspect that the validity of such studies is going to vary greatly according to a number of factors, including not least the overall approach to ethnicity taken by a given society. Canada and the US have always had, for instance, a different approach to assimilation: in the US, the "melting pot," and in Canada, the so-called "multicultural mosaic." Toronto, where I live, is sometimes called the most diverse city in the world. I've no idea if that is true or not, but it certainly IS enormously diverse; recently the number of "visible minorities" (a slippery term to be sure) in the city overtook the number of "whites."

Yet, despite some obvious problems, the city "works" very well. Our immigrant populations tend to cluster in "neighbourhoods" -- NOT ghettos, but distinct enclaves. They are WONDERFUL: a fifteen minute walk through the downtown can take me from Greece all the way to India. I'm not Portugese, but I live in "Little Portugal": it is both distinctively ethnic AND remarkably open and welcoming.

We have racism, of course. But we have very little ethnic violence; in fact, our rate of violent crime, already very low, has been dropping steadily over the last decade.

In the 60s, Toronto used to be derided as "Hogtown." It is now, largely because of our immigrant population, a centre for the arts, and a really fun and exciting city in which to live.

I'm not trying to tout one approach over another; there are losses from our approach. Canadians tend to lament the "lack" of a really unifying Canadian "character," for instance, something that is certainly not true of the US. I suspect that that is a sacrifice Americans are unwilling to make. And that's perhaps understandable.

But what CAN be said is that the way in which immigrants function within a culture depends a GREAT deal on the way in which we embrace those immigrants, and our expectations about assimilation.

Agreed. I know where Jig is coming from, and sympathize with her dislike of Chris's perspective , but as someone who holds a few (ahem) unpopular views myself, I appreciate and value the right I have to express them here. Ultimately, we get nowhere unless we are honest about what we think.

I don't believe that xenophobic applies, but superiority complex might.

But the original statement was so meaningless as to be unworthy of notice. "Better" requires a dimension. Otherwise it's like saying salmon is better than hockey. Without knowing whether you're talking about a way to improve cardiac health or a symbol of Nova Scotia, it's just a bunch of words meant to incite without saying anything.

At the same time, wouldn't you feel a Chinese restaurant lacked an authentic ambience if your waiter looked Scandinavian?

Or in a Latino neighborhood where a help wanted sign for a waiter who has to know Spanish in addition to the local language? If your other language is German don't expect miracles. Why should you?

What about guys who prefer blondes over brunettes - or prefer women with a certain dimple on their cheek? Or women who date men with cleft chins? These would all fall under racism if we went literal and took everything to extremes.

Nothing is so black and white in perspective. Maybe there's more reason than regarding a race as inferior to reject them, which is the basis for racism.

If you have a theme or particular atmosphere, you're entitled to find exactly what you need to achieve that. Unless you're paying for their expenses and it's your land.

Thinking... I think I have now three friends whose primary avs are African American. Having land near Nessus I know MANY "Jewish" avatars.

I don't know if this works but here is a really nice pic of a beautiful African American avatar:

One of my best SL memories, is being at a Paisley Beebe show and seeing Phillip Linden being interviewed; he was in a full African tribal avatar complete with dreadlocks. He was beautiful, I think I fell in love with him that day. His avatar had nothing to do with the topic, or why he was being interviewed, it's just who he was that day. Color blind, the freedom to just be 'whomever' without even thinking of a lot of crap that goes with the idea of other races/ethnicities, in people's minds. It was a real SL Wow moment for me.

This segues nicely into what I was about to say. A culture that does not practice "honor killing" of women who exhibit independence in their associations and activities with others is better than one that does not. A culture that does not practice female genital mutilation is better than one that does not. A culture that does not abandon babies or sell them into slavery because they are of a different race than the majority, or because they are female, is better than one that does not. A culture that does not outlaw the languages and religions of people of other cultures who live among them is better than one that does not.

All those examples are real cultural practices that can be observed in the world today.

"Multi-culturalism" may or may not be a virtue, depending on how it is defined. Sometimes people who live in peaceful "multi-cultural" western countries where people have street fairs to exhibit different "ethnic" foods and costumes forget how things really are in places like the Middle East, sub-saharan Africa, and the Balkans. Tolerance of cultural diversity can only go so far before it becomes an excuse for the continued practice of ignorance, barbarism, and oppression. I'd prefer that we step back from celebrating our differences and spend a little more time celebrating our common values and aspirations long before we get to that point.

using the term 'african american' to describe a black av operated by an operator that could be european, african, australian, etc is quite comical.
local pc sounds odd shared over a global medium.

The things you describe here are indeed barbarities of the first order. But I think it is a dangerous leap to run from describing a particular cultural practice as a barbarism, to applying that term to an entire culture as a result.

I don't think I'd have a great deal of difficulty in producing a catalogue of vicious and unsavory cultural practices like the ones you describe here for Western culture. I feel enormously fortunate and privileged to have been born into a culture that is as fantastically wealthy and advantaged as mine is, but I am all too aware of the degree to which that privilege and wealth has been built upon an ongoing legacy of imperialism and economic and social exploitation of other, less fortunate, parts of the world. I am aware, too, of the enormous disparities in wealth and advantage that exist within my own culture. These sorts of things are barbarisms too, but their existence does not make Western culture "barbaric."

There is an irony inherent in the fact that all of these vicious culture practices that you cite here are founded upon an unwillingness to accept "difference," be it of gender, religion, or race. I think that it is that openness, the discarding of the old beliefs that "my" race, religion, gender, or culture is "best" that defines the movement AWAY from barbarism.

Of course, I agree with you to a degree. One should never be unthinking or uncritical in one's "openness." I have a great deal of respect for Islam, but I'm not too keen on certain fundamentalist manifestations of that religion. Then again, I'm not very happy with fundamentalist Christianity or Judaism either. These fundamentalisms are certainly aspects of their respective cultures, but they don't define them. Female genital mutilation is associated with particular expressions of Islamic belief, but there are millions of Muslims the world over who abhor the practice.

We need to embrace the differences that are worth embracing, and discard those that are NOT open and accepting. And that goes as much for my own culture as anyone else's.


I'm not sure why celebrations of both common values and differences should be mutually exclusive. My friends are "compatible" with me because we share many values, but if their views were identical to mine, we'd have very very dull discussions indeed.

Technically I'm a "Mustelid-Australian" but that doesn't sound as funny.

Probably you and I will end up by saying that you are essentially optimistic about the reformability of mass human behavior, while I am essentially pessimistic about it.

But I'll add a few points:

First, it's not about religion or Islam. "Honor killing" is not endorsed by any mainstream Islamic sect or doctrine. In fact, Islam forbids it. It is a feature primarily of Arabic culture, which remains fundamentally mysoginistic despite the reforms that Mohammed and his successors attempted to introduce for the role of women in that society. Female genital mutilation, similarly, is not a religious practice but a cultural one; you'll find it in sub-saharan communities where the dominant religion is Islam, Christianity, or some form of animisim.

I do see what you're saying, though. Ancient Greek culture was also profoundly mysoginistic, and yet it seems to have produced some things of lasting value.


People all over the world practice imperialism to the extent of their abilities to do so. Ghengis Khan was perhaps the most successful imperialist in history. But the Chinese, the Turks, the Persians, the Arabs, the Aztecs, the Incas, and many societies of sub-saharan Africa and pre-columbian North America also practiced it. Western Europe developed greater capacities for this than most other societies, but it is guilty of no greater crimes in this arena than many others. Because just about everybody who *can* practice imperialism does it, I would argue that it's a wash and should be factored out of discussions of the relative value of cultures.


I'd rather they weren't, and they aren't, as I say, up to a point. But the situation is always fluid. For example, things seemed to be going fairly well in the Balkans for a few decades in the middle of the 20th. century (though they had been handily killing each other earlier in the 1900s). There was some amount of cultural integration, and cross-cultural relationships and intermarriages. But when some extremists got the ability to roil people up, it didn't take long for all that seeming amity to evaporate completely and people were back at each other's throats.

I would argue that the extent of tolerance of cultural diversity that Western societies have managed to achieve is an irreducible result of thousands of years of unique historical experiences that other societies did not have. We have created a "big tent" where good things can happen as long as people don't take themselves too seriously. But even here, when people start edging over from the ethnic street fairs and so forth and start demanding that they be permitted to significantly separate themselves from the rest of the polity by mechanisms such as primary language, "traditional values" governing how women or people with disabilities are treated, or theocratic legislation, they step over the line and start the progression toward violence and repression. I think there are lots of people who are always ready to go there, without much provocation. And when they do, they will cheerfully wipe out nice, calm debaters like you and me without thinking twice about it. Those who refuse to take sides will be the first against the wall. That's why I think it would be better to emphasize common values, and de-emphasize our differences.

In a domestically violent relationship the most dangerous time is when the woman tries to leave. It often gets her killed.



There is no square inch of a woman's body that is free from scrutiny including plastic surgery inside and outside that same region. Not only for porn stars, either. It may not be forced but still, why is it even an ideal?



Human trafficking including the sale of children for many reasons, does happen here. So does child abandonment, for many reasons. Including in both cases, because the child is female. In cases of sexual exploitation, especially so.



When is the last time you heard the Navajo language spoken?

I'm just saying. No culture on earth is immune from all of these terrible things. Unfortunately.

No culture is perfect and you won't find me defending western culture as a perfect example. However, in western culture these things are regarded as deviant and criminal activities. In other cultures these things are explicitly legal or tolerated as "normal". All other things being equal, which kind of culture would you rather live in?


Female genital mutilation is practiced as a means of reducing the sexual pleasure experienced by women and, therefore, presumably, their sexual independence. It is involuntary, or conducted under a form of cultural brainwashing that is as near to coercion as makes no difference. It is intended to take something away from the people to whom it is done.

The cosmetic surgery you describe is practiced for the purpose of enhancing the self-esteem of the people who have it done, and/or ostensibly to improve their ability to make a living from their physical bodies. Athletes who take steroids are doing the same thing. We can argue about whether this is a good idea or not at another place and time (though I'm likely to agree with you), but it's really apples to my oranges here. In any case, it is done voluntarily, and it is intended to provide a benefit to the people who choose to have it done. Again, which culture would you rather live in?


This one gets me where I'm weak at least. Actually, I think it is still spoken in some places, but I could be wrong. Yes, Europeans in North America made a deliberate effort to wipe out Native American culture. The only thing I can say in defense of my position is, we stopped doing it when we realized it was wrong. There are other cultures that right now, today, are still doing this kind of thing, despite the fact that they have available to them a knowledge of our history and the bad things that resulted from our bad behavior. Again, which culture would you rather live in?


You're right. What I am saying is that despite this great truth, it also remains true that today there are some cultures that are less vicious and destructive than others.

It's hard to disagree with most of what you say here, but I guess, for me, it comes down to the utility of the conclusion you are arriving at.

What is the POINT of being able to say "my culture is better than yours"? You admit that ALL cultures have their share of faults (the First Nations example Clarissa gave is indeed an excellent one, but there are others that are specific to the West). Identifying the "best" culture, having admitted as much, does no more than encourage complacency.

Surely the best route to take is to endorse and adopt that which is best from any and all cultures?

Female genital mutilation, while abhorrent to me, personally, because of my own culture, and my own understanding of things, is difficult to reconcile. Because while I feel the way I do, as do most of us here, based on these postings, the practice is inherent to the honor of another culture. They are just as horrified on the other side of the fence, at the idea of it 'not' being done. I struggle to wrap my brain around it, to understand that they see my way of thinking as being intolerant and insensitive and disrespectful to their cultural beliefs and practices. I say 'my' culture is 'better' (if better is a word we can use here for this topic) because we don't do that. The people who practice this type of thing would have the opposite opinion. This type of thing really does come down to a matter of opinion, and who is doing the opining. Sometimes the mere idea of a thing is so foreign to our mentality that we just can't wrap our minds around it, to try to see it from the point of view of the people practicing it.

Oh geez, Treasure . . . I take your point, but you are sort of levering me over to Esquievel's side in this argument now.

I'd have fewer problems with female genital mutilation if it weren't JUST female. I still wouldn't LIKE it, but it would at least seem less like a form of repression. Males don't have to worry about an equivalent procedure: this is a case of the dominant element in a culture enforcing its will upon the "other."

And that again is my central point: the WORST parts of any culture, including those, are always the ones that are LEAST open to other perspectives. Whether its xenophobia, "national self-interest," racism, misogyny, or homophobia, these things are always about an unwillingness to accept difference.

Which is why I think it remains so important to acknowledge and celebrate difference . . . with the proviso, of course, that what one is celebrating ISN'T a Trojan Horse that is itself about repression and violence against the "other."

Well, I'm just sayin'....just because a thing is abhorrent to 'me' or even to a majority of like minded folks in a discussion doesn't mean that thing is abhorrent to everyone. I do understand where you are coming from, the female focused violence. Or what I, or even 'we' perceive as violence. From my own reading, and/or life experiences, though, those women don't necessarily see what is being done to them as violence, nor do they see themselves as victims. They see it as necessity to 'get a husband' in their culture. To them, our way is foreign, strange, and something their own life experiences don't let them accept. It's another perspective, there's always another perspective. So then I have to start wondering, Do I have a right, some kind of inherent right, to force my beliefs of a thing, on you? (the opposite cultural, royal, 'you'. ) Is a thing wrong because I believe it is and because my like minded colleagues believe it is?