In the US, tuition is the total cost of attending college/university (or a private school at lower levels). Room & board are typically extra, and optional, as some students live off campus.

Students can apply for scholarships, which are very diverse. Some are from the school, some from charitable organizations, some from the government, etc. they may be for academic success, artistic talent, athletic ability, etc. They may be “full ride,” meaning they cover all costs, or just a few hundred dollars. They may be renewable by semester, year, etc, or for all four years.

Grants are generally more need-based, as opposed to ability-based. They also come from diverse sources.

[Kindergarten:]

RRA1 – I don’t know of a website that explains the U.S. educational system both completely and in easy-to-read format, but I took a stab at it.
 
Prior to specific grades, it is noteworthy that schooling can be public or private. Public schools are either mostly or largely funded by the government via taxes. As such, they have to abide by various governmental regulations and policies. (For example, our First Amendment says in part that the government cannot impose a particular religious belief on people; public schools therefore cannot promote a specific religion.)
 
Private schools generally charge students tuition and are largely exempt from those sorts of regulations. Many private schools have a religious affiliation, e.g. Catholic schools, Baptist schools, Jewish schools. These often mingle required religious training or services into the curriculum. Private schools are also very often viewed as better schools than public ones, with wealthy families sending their children to them. Some private schools—called boarding schools—even have full campuses and dormitories where the children live away from home at the schools.
 
There is a third option that is more recent—the past few decades—called “charter schools.” These are unique because they receive public funding but are privately operated. They typically have teachers who are not members of a labor union, they often have unique curriculums, and are often managed in a different way than public schools. You see them particularly in impoverished or other disadvantaged areas as alternatives to the failing public schools. For example, in New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina, I believe they mostly replaced traditional public schools (NOLA BB Fan can probably speak to that better than I can.)
 
It is also noteworthy that the U.S. educational system probably seems complex because it is for the most part decentralized: local towns, school districts, and states have quite a bit of control over things, so it is different from place to place. I have noted some variations below, but there are always other differences possible from place to place.
 
Kindergarten: For children approx. age 5. While most school is roughly 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, kindergarten is often a half day or every other day.
 
Grades 1-12: Often grades 1-4 or 1-5 are called elementary school; 5-8 are called middle school; and 9-12 are called high school. It used to be more common that they would be divided as 1-6 (elementary), 7-8 (junior high school), and 9-12 (high school), but that changed in the past few decades. Those same years are also sometimes called primary school (up through about 8th grade) and secondary school (9-12).
 
Whether these are in the same buildings or different ones depends on the size of the town or schools. For example, I grew up in a town of about 2,000 people and our entire K-12 schooling was in the same large building, and other than a small Catholic school that served kids K-6, it was the only school in town. Now I live in a city where I think there are seven separate public high schools, probably several dozen private ones, and too many middle schools and elementary schools for me to even guess their number (every neighborhood has them).
 
Often, in the lower grades, a student is in a single class with a single teacher all day (with exceptions for things like music or physical education/gym class). Starting in the middle school/junior high range, they often move from room to room to be taught by teachers with more specialization (different teachers for math, English, other foreign languages, science, history, etc.). The curriculum is assigned in the lower grades, with a little flexibility added over time so that high school students can generally choose somewhat in their course of study (e.g., a student who intends to pursue music could take music theory or band, while some other student might take as many math courses as possible). But there are basic frameworks required of everyone to graduate.
 
In public schools, there is no tuition to attend through 12th grade. Everyone is required to attend school (or be home-schooled in the equivalent curriculum) by law, at least until usually the age of 16, at which point people can drop out with parental permission.
 
In the past, people could reasonably expect to be qualified for many basic, working-class jobs after completing school through 12th grade (i.e. obtaining high school diploma). However, this is no longer true. Someone with that education level can work in restaurants, some basic manual labor, some factory or janitorial jobs, but not much in the way of skilled labor, business, etc.
 
Post-Secondary Education / Higher Education: This is the optional education that takes place in colleges, universities, or trade schools. It is almost never free, though publicly funded institutions charge far less than private ones. Costs might be as low as a few thousand dollars a year, or as high as well over $50,000 a year. There are various forms of public or private loans, grants, etc., that help people finance education, with government money going directly to the institutions to help cover costs, to financial institutions to help cover costs, and to students to help cover costs. It is a complex, clumsy situation that in my opinion has resulted in tremendous amounts of unnecessary costs that eventually raise the overall costs. But that’s another story.
 
Some of the main types of post-secondary education are:
-       Vocational school, trade school, technical college, community college. These are usually 2-year or otherwise abbreviated programs that focus on specific or limited subjects intended to get students into the work force. Examples could be auto repair, basic business skills, healthcare, etc. The result is either an associate’s degree or some sort of professional certification. These schools often do not have dormitories and may not have extracurricular activities such as sports teams, bands and choirs, etc. They tend to be “commuter schools,” with students who live elsewhere simply commuting to the facilities to take classes. They are also regularly used by older students, perhaps looking to change careers, to get more schooling after having initially stopped, etc., and they tend to have many options for scheduling as well, such as evening classes, fewer days a week (but longer classes), and so on, to make it easier on (for example) single parents who have jobs simultaneously getting this education.
 
-       College and university. There are technical differences between colleges and universities, but they don’t matter much on a practical level. They have historically been designed for students to attend for four years, after which they receive a bachelor’s degree with a particular focus of study. However, students may complete their coursework in fewer or more years, depending on how many classes they take and how they perform. These institutions typically have a full campus of multiple classroom buildings, dormitories, athletic facilities, and other “student life” facilities such as a student union (which basically comprises bookstores, leisure areas, cafes, and so on).
 
-       Graduate schools. These are often, but not always, parts of colleges and universities, with their facilities on the same campuses. But the students are people who already have bachelors degrees and are seeking higher-level professional or academic credentials such as masters degrees or doctorates. Typical examples are students entering medical school, law school, or simply higher-level degrees in academic disciplines. These students often both pursue their own advanced degrees and teach undergraduates (e.g. the students seeking their bachelors degrees) in their introductory coursework.

This is one of my favourite subjects so I hope you don't mind if I engage it a bit further.

I don’t mind a bit, and interesting take. I’ll reply in a bit in the Reading thread. First I’m finishing up a US education system summary for RRA1, which I’ll post here.

I really liked Anna Karenina but hated War & Peace. Tolstoy was a great writer but I prefer Dostoevsky and Gogol (among Russian writers of 19th century). But definitely as with music, once you are dealing with artists who have technical competence, it truly comes down to taste.

I want to defend the idea of moving away from your family home after high school and living either in dorms or otherwise elsewhere during college/university. It seems to me that young adulthood is an appropriate time for a person to stop living as his (or her, but for convenience’s sake I’m going with only one set of pronouns) parents’ child and begin to become his own person. That, I believe, requires a certain degree of independence that goes beyond the loosening of parental rules (e.g. “now that you’re in college, you can stay out as late as you want”), but rather actual responsibility and freedom.
 
By living on one’s own, the student has an opportunity to explore the corners and boundaries of freedom, eventually in effect setting his own rules (e.g., realizing that getting drunk results in cloudy thinking if not sickness the next day, and thus deciding that weeknight drinking is a bad idea; or that staying up all night playing video games results in sleeping through morning classes and consequently getting bad grades, and so choosing to get a reasonable amount of sleep the nights before classes).
 
Beyond the practical problems, there is also the space and time to experience other people, other ideas, and basically (to use a cliché) “figure yourself out.” In many situations, I doubt a young person can or will do that in such close proximity to his parents.
 
A few of you have rightly pointed out that many students end up wasting this time by skipping classes, drinking or otherwise carousing too much, etc. I don’t disagree. But that is a potential consequence of independence. There are inevitably small failures and mistakes along the way to maturity, but I believe those are experiences from which a person grows. Living with one’s parents just prolongs the security of childhood and pushes out the weight of adulthood. I think living in a dorm or apartment can help ease that transition.
 
However I also want to be clear that I don’t think there is a single “best solution” for everyone. Different families have different relationships, different kids have different levels of maturity, different colleges place different financial burdens on students, etc.

the Captain - I wish that my cats could be somewhat controlled via a baby gate!  I love parades of any sort. I still attend hometown ones. While not exciting, they touch a sentimental place in my heart. It was fun watching my boys' faces as they experienced them, eyes wide open and going after the candy thrown by various entities.  Also, I was a flag girl in my high school band. Why was your mother made the marshall? She must have done something cool.

As a kid I loved the parades, mostly because of the candy. (I was terrified of clowns, though! And that was before Stephen King’s “It” made such a fear explicable.) It was sad seeing how much smaller the whole affair was, though, compared to the 80s and even 90s. Circa ‘92ish, the HS band would number about 100; yesterday’s maybe hit 25, and was grades 7-12.

My mom probably got the award for being a cofounder and prominent promoter of (and volunteer for) the local museum / historical society. They have converted a late 19th century train depot, long since empty, into a little museum. But she has also long been involved in many lives cal organizations (chamber of commerce, Kiwanis, etc) and spent a good while as editor of the local paper back when I was in HS. So it might’ve had a “lifetime achievement” flavor. (In so small a town, realistically speaking, candidates are few, too.)

Today I went to my hometown because my mom was named grand marshal of the local festival, so we went to see her in the parade, etc. It's a small, rural town and the parade is not remotely exciting: fire trucks, ambulances, marching bands, a few floats and things from local businesses, veterans, and tractors. Yes, some tractors. I'm not entirely sure why...it's just what happens. It's the first of these parades I've seen since I marched in them in the early 90s as a member of the high school band. I don't get back much. But several of my aunts, a cousin, a sibling, etc., were there to support my mom as well. I think she enjoyed it. My dad, who had to ride along with her, not so much!

Got home to find the dogs had gotten through the baby gate we'd set up to keep them in the basement. Oh well, they didn't wreck anything or go too crazy.

I don’t think anyone is putting the blame on her. I also think there’s nothing wrong with having a more nuanced discussion about these things, even being as sensitive as they are.

CSM, I don’t know if reasonable needs to be linked with consequences to others or only oneself. It seems to me that something could rightly be considered unreasonable if the likely consequences outweigh the benefits, even if only to oneself. Smoking is unreasonable...but you’re welcome to do it (so long as you’re not polluting my air). Ditto excessive drinking, I’d say (said the heavy drinker). I’m not advocating legislation against such behavior, just saying it is properly considered unreasonable.

There is probably a distinction to be made between reasonable and understandable. It is understandable why someone might get drunk: relieve social anxiety, relieve stress, self medicating, or even give oneself permission to behave in a certain way. But it isn’t really reasonable, in that the potential or likely (depending on how often and to what degree you do it) consequences by most accounts outweigh the benefits.

I say this as a pretty regular drinker. But ask someone whose liver is failing or who faces serious prison time after multiple DUIs whether the drinking was reasonable.

I see.

I think what you’re talking about is what has been recently called “virtue signaling” in the US.

By the way, I find public grieving about celebrities very strange. Obviously I don’t wish them I’ll or anything, but as you say, when someone you’ve never met and don’t know except through movies, music, etc dies, especially if s/he is of an old age, it seems strange to me to mourn, particularly publicly. Saying RIP on a message board: the dead person and his/her family don’t read it.

I remember 9/11 quite well, as I expect most people who were of a certain age at the time must. I also understand what RRA1 is saying (even though I wonder if she’s alluding to me about the sympathy comments, considering we had a little discussion about homelessness rates or something not so long ago): I acknowledge that even if having universal concern is an ideal, human nature is to care most about those in our immediate families or circles, and then less as you shift outward. Throughout history most people would rank their care or sympathy in a descending order along the lines of immediate family, extended family, community, region, country, race or ethnicity, humanity. For better or worse, it is natural.
 
I had already been at work a while that morning when someone said a plane hit a one of the towers. I tried to see what was happening on the NY Times website and it had been mostly replaced with a very basic headline, summary, and image, but mostly without links or graphics, I think because the traffic was so high that it was crashing. It wasn’t clear what happened, but by the time the second plane hit, it was obviously terrorism. There were the rumors about what else happened or might happen that whole morning, maybe that whole day.
 
Reaction was quite diverse. A client of our company said we didn’t have to continue performing our contract for them that day: we could all leave. But our own company president never said any such thing: in fact, at noon that day he said something like “wow, this thing just isn’t going away, is it?” As if he thought the story should have faded into the background after three or four hours! So I finished the workday more or less as usual, though I kept an eye on the news as much as I could.
 
A good friend of mine was quite angry with me that night as we drank beer on my front porch, enjoying the suddenly quiet evening. (I lived near the airport at the time, and all air travel had been suspended.) While the specifics of the event were a surprise, the overall idea that it would have happened wasn’t: we’d had incidents with Islamist terrorists before, and had sown plenty of bad feelings in the region. But at that time, even hinting at any level of explanation was considered very unpatriotic; my friend was red-faced and practically shouting at me, “why do you hate America!?” It was weird how everyone became a rabid patriot at the flip of a switch, suddenly towing the party line.
 
Immediately everyone was saying “everything changed because of 9/11.” I thought that was a nonsense position to take. There wasn’t much surprising about the incident other than the details and the scale, maybe. It wasn’t unimaginable at all to me. And I don’t think anything much HAD to change, even though a lot DID change. To me, if one’s thinking required a major shift of perspective, that just reflected on that person’s lack of imagination or awareness prior to the incident. Suddenly our civil rights were eroded without much question just because of the tragedy.
 
An analogy might be the idea of innocence until proven guilty being reversed upon realizing that someone guilty might go free after a crime: it’s built into the concept, so why would that be a surprise?

For the record (and as I’ve probably said 1,000 times in my almost 20 years of BBs-related message-boarding), I’m also in favor of new studio work above anything else. The touring has had its high points—what great bands he’s had!—but it’s not what I like best about him.

But it’s what he wants to do. And it’s where the money is in the current music world. That’s life.

I really wished he did not have to do this any more. The whole world should know by now that Brian Wilson is a genius; touring PS and GH year after year isn't necessary. I always thought Brian Wilson was supposed to be about CREATING music, not being a traveling jukebox.

He didn’t, and doesn’t, have to tour. But he apparently has chosen to tour. So we get to go or not go.

The whole (musical) world DOES know he’s a genius. Touring PS or GH ISN’T necessary. But what has necessary got to do with anything?

What you, or I, or anyone “always thought Brian Wilson was supposed to be about” could not be less relevant. He has created great music. He has played “jukebox” shows. Apparently he’s about both of those things, and plenty more besides. One thing he certainly does not need “to be about” is trying to live out some platonic ideals that message board fans have imagined for him.

As to whether it is important, well, I think that it incredibly interesting.

I agree with your entire post, but wanted to make sure I was clear when I said "on some level, entirely unimportant." Because like you, I do find different traditions truly fascinating. I loved learning about the old traditions--be they the Scandinavian and German ones of my ancestors, or even just rural turn-of-the-century Scandinavian- and German-American ones of my more recent predecessors--to say nothing of the wide world beyond them. So I don't mean to demean them as unimportant on that level. But when the value translates to nationalism or silly unearned pride (and corresponding dislike for 'other'), that's where it becomes unacceptable. The thing that those people are finding, that's the thing that is actually unimportant. Being of an ethnicity or race or whatever term one prefers isn't important. The traditions of an ethnicity or race, those are important.

Buckethead - are the gentlemen excluded from seasonal prefernces?  I'm a fall man, myself. Partly because our winters are so cold and our summers are so hot and humid, fall is the only reasonable season (brief as it tends to be here). I do enjoy the scenery to some extent, but it's more just the comfort. I do also enjoy cooking with the root vegetables and squashes that are seasonal for fall.

As for the whole conversation about ethnic roots, I find the entire concepts of "100% [whatever]" nonsensical! Some people make a big deal about being all Irish, all whatever else. But that's just not true, because whoever you are and wherever you're from, people always came to there from elsewhere. People always have intermingled. As you said, even Native Americans aren't native Americans, they're descended from various northeast Asian groups. Did those people rise from the dirt of Siberia? No, they moved there from the southwest, and so on, indefinitely, for everyone, forever. Nobody grew from the soil like grass. Everyone has always come from elsewhere and mingled with others (and thank goodness, or the species would have long-since died out). Ethnic heritage is endlessly interesting, but on some level, entirely unimportant.

Took a midmorning walk to, partway around, and back from the closest lake. Pulled some weeds. Bought a twenty-five cent glass of lemonade from the little neighbor kids' stand. Put a pot of mixed beans (black, pinto, and kidney) on the stove with onions, jalapenos, tomatoes, a ton of garlic, and a nice bunch of herbs. I plan now to sit outside in the backyard to read away the sunny afternoon.

People have noticed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brC0IIUtfAA

What a strange video. It's being read by some Siri-like contraption, the videos don't match the copy (e.g., showing Minneapolis while discussing St. Paul's features), and some pretty basic factual errors (sorry, Minnesota is neither [geographically] small nor located east of Lake Superior).

True that, you play any basketball in the summer?

Not much. It gets harder to organize guys to play, especially summer/outdoor ball: families and significant others, domestic duties, work lives, etc. And as you get old and broken down, you don't really want to just join random pickup games, lest you end up immediately outclassed by some energetic 20-something (and possibly seriously hurt from trying to keep up). I didn't even play any rec league this year. I think my athletic career, such as it was, is over, and I will be mostly confined to walking, running, biking, swimming, etc., going forward.

Took a midmorning walk to, partway around, and back from the closest lake. Pulled some weeds. Bought a twenty-five cent glass of lemonade from the little neighbor kids' stand. Put a pot of mixed beans (black, pinto, and kidney) on the stove with onions, jalapenos, tomatoes, a ton of garlic, and a nice bunch of herbs. I plan now to sit outside in the backyard to read away the sunny afternoon.

People have noticed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brC0IIUtfAA

What a strange video. It's being read by some Siri-like contraption, the videos don't match the copy (e.g., showing Minneapolis while discussing St. Paul's features), and some pretty basic factual errors (sorry, Minnesota is neither [geographically] small nor located east of Lake Superior).

the Captain - I hear you about labeling generations. I'm sure that the differences among the given individuals are certainly greater. I always enjoy reading descriptions of youth in times past. For example, take Socrates:  “The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.” Still, some tendencies might be noted in given cohorts. For example, my parents' generation, who grew up during the Great Depression, do seem to go to greater measures than mine to save, reuse, etc.
This makes sense, as they and their families were more vulnerable to deprivation than we are today in the US and western countries. They had no food stamps, subsidized housing, etc., and if they were not driven into poverty through no fault of their own, they knew many who were.

I do (grudgingly!) admit that tendencies across generations are valid. But they might be more accurately identified and discussed after the fact, as most things are, as opposed to by the one or two generations immediately adjacent to them. After all, those generations are viewing through their own particular biases. That's exactly why that Socrates quote--and a million others from a million other eras--say basically the same thing. It's because it's always true that the young are rebelling against the establishment to find their own way, which the establishment always sees as bad manners, contempt for tradition, etc.

Your Great Depression anecdote is reasonable, but in my family it resulted in two very different outlooks. On my dad's side, my grandparents were both extremely thrifty. They used and reused everything, never bought anything that wasn't on sale, didn't spend on any pleasantries, to say nothing of luxuries. This was because of their rough experiences in the Depression. (My grandmother on that side lost her mother to death and her father shortly after to desertion, leaving her--age 12--running their family farm and taking care of the younger siblings. It didn't go well.) But on my mom's side, with equally impoverished upbringings, my grandparents took that experience differently. They apparently figured life was brief and times could change on a dime, so they enjoyed life much more on a material level. They weren't ever rich and didn't throw away the money they made, but they were quicker to take vacations, to buy new appliances or gadgets, and so on. Point being, even if there are tendencies, we still need to be careful when generalizing.

When there is an increase in birth rates, in the US it is informally called a "baby boom." After World War II (and lasting for over a decade), the birth rate spiked significantly here. The resulting babies, having been the product of that baby boom, were and are called Baby Boomers as shorthand for that generation.

I get sick of this need here to name generations, especially since they have in the past couple decades begun changing the parameters of the generations as well as the names. I also don't think it's right to ascribe personality traits to a whole generation.

Re: bad words, Real beach boy used to say here "You choose to be offended". What does it mean? Does it mean literally what the phrase says? Do you agree with the phrase? It's really puzzling.

I hate to speak for someone else, but I think TRBB meant it pretty much literally. There is a narrative in the general social/political world where he seems to fit that there is a culture in America of people who actively seek to be (or at least act) offended by everything, because then they can complain about the alleged offenders as being somehow oppressive. So if I were to be offended that you use some anti-male, or anti-white, or anti-American slur against me, as the victim, I am the person who gets the moral upper hand in a debate. The natural response is that people sympathize with the victim and against the violator. So, according to this line of thinking, people misuse or even invent victimhood to get the upper hand in debates: instead of equals debating a point, one is oppressor and one is oppressed, and the oppressed has the moral upper hand. That is the theory, and I am guessing that is what TRBB meant.

My response to this is probably more ambiguous than you're going to like, but I'll try it anyway. I think there is truth in that idea, but I don't think that idea is literally true. To truly be offended is often an emotional reaction, and I don't think we generally choose our emotions. People don't wake up and say "today I will be depressed!" but sometimes people wake up and are depressed. Ditto happy, angry, and yes, offended.

However, I do think that a person can understand emotions and manage them. I also agree to some extent that some people seem to enjoy manipulating other people, and one way to do that is by being a martyr or victim: it can be a cynical situation like I described above, or it could just be that a person enjoys the attention s/he gets from being in that position. I think even subconsciously people could choose to put themselves in that role repeatedly for that reason.

An example that isn't exactly the same, but is similar enough to show my point, is something I've noticed in my office over the years. We have had a few different executive assistants there who at first glance are terribly overworked: always drowning in tasks to be done, seemingly swimming in unfair work, the only person hanging on to order in an environment that could easily slide into chaos without her. But ... upon closer inspection over time, I would notice that many of this urgency and busyness was nonsense. Invented work. Entirely inessential. Made more complex than it had to be. It seems to me that these types of people simply like being seen as the only person holding things together, and more or less create an almost chaotic environment just to be seen in that way. They seem to like being in that role. I can't say whether they consciously choose it or subconsciously manifest it.

So to summarize, I don't literally or precisely agree with the phrase or idea, no. But I think there is something to it on some possibly subconscious or occasionally personality-quirk level.

I don’t think that’s quite fair, because he also went from being Brian’s main assistant/handler/whatever you want to call it to just being a band member. He mentioned in one interview how it was nice to be able to have more time to enjoy each city on his own as opposed to add’l obligations with Brian. I got the impression that was what he meant by burned out.

The earthier Holland-era sound seemed like a similarly unnatural fit to me.

Consider this scenario for a moment, if you will: What if The Beach Boys as a collective unit have come together to announce and support their friend and partner, Mike Love, in having his own line of Beach Boys related clothing? What if Brian himself gave his full approval and blessing? Would that change anybody's tune?

Well if they actually all talked about the shirt thing, joked about it, and said they were supporting Mike's line, it would make a little more sense, and it would less weird if Brian/Al said they were knowingly supporting Mike and added that they just simply decided to wear their street clothes just because they're more comfortable in them. It'd still be bizarre, but maybe it'd make more sense if they were upfront like that in your hypothetical scenario.

But you didn't answer my question about KISS.  What if KISS reunited and did a press conference, but only 2 or 3 of them were dressed up in the iconic makeup, but the other(s) weren't? With no band member mentioning a peep about the difference. Would that not strike you as weird?

I think that the KISS scenario would play out exactly the same way. The hardcore fans would be elated, and the jaded fans of Ace and Peter would blame either Paul or Gene for refusing to allow the other two to wear the makeup, thereby insuring that they wouldn't really be fully "reunited". Now, if it were Paul or Gene not wearing the makeup? I'm not really sure how that would play out. 

For a good analogy, it would have to be Ace and/or Peter not in makeup: original members not currently in the band. But we’d also need a non original member (eg Bruce) in makeup. With Eric Carr deceased, that leaves an in-makeup Vinnie Vincent with Gene and Paul. And Vinnie would look SPECTACULAR in costume these days!

You know what else? I bet Brian’s reaction would be pretty similar to Ace’s: laughter.

RRA1, Minnesota is cold in winter (usually -17 to -40 C) but can be very hot in summer (32-35 C). And actually tourism is a major industry here, especially in summer, because of our lakes and forests. Many communities, particularly in the north and northeast, exist solely because of tourism. There is also some tourism in winter, largely based on winter-sports enthusiasts, but nowhere near as much.
 
Minnesota’s ethnic makeup is largely Scandinavian to the point of it being a joke, but I think the largest single country of origin would be Germany. But certainly Germans, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians dominate ethnically. There were also waves of Irish and Polish in the early days of the state’s history. Then once the logging and mining industries really got going in the later 1800s, the northern part of the state saw immigration from the nations that were sending many immigrants at that time: Serbs, Croats, Finns, Italians, Poles, as well as a Jewish wave from Russia and various Eastern European countries, and some Asians. So northern Minnesota has some different roots than the bulk of the state. Then in the 1900s, after Vietnam, we had a large wave of immigrants brought in largely by churches, giving us what I think is the biggest Hmong population in America, followed by more recent (mostly since the 90s) waves of Somalians and Ethiopians, giving us the biggest Somalian population outside that country.
 
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll offer an answer anyway: the n-word is especially offensive because of how it was intended, not by the word itself. Certainly, we can all see its etymological roots, which are as harmless as any other word. And the word is sometimes used among some black people without offense. But when used offensively, it is taken offensively: and then because of the system under which it rose to prominence (slavery and post-slavery Jim Crow), it holds a special place as an insult.
 
Your line of thinking makes sense: I remember vividly when I argued as a child—7th grade, maybe?—with a teacher about swearing more generally (not that word). I argued that the words themselves obviously weren’t inherently offensive, because some of those words could be used in different context in which they weren’t considered swearing. And yet the meanings also weren’t offensive, because we used different words to mean the same thing, and those also weren’t considered swearing. I argued that it was silly to take offense at words that had no power other than a group of people deciding they were off limits.
 
But that’s just language. The intent and shared understanding is what matters. That’s why even though I personally don’t think any word is offensive—I don’t even think words themselves CAN be offensive, only thoughts—I’m also the “loser,” the outlier. I’m not going to go around casually using the ones that people generally find offensive, because however much I might say this word is nothing special, that won’t stop punches from landing on my face.