<p>“Virtually” modifies “every”.</p>
<p>I am a minority. I don’t want to be stereotyped.</p>
<p>I don’t want to be called “white” either. I am choosing to be offended if someone calls me white and not Swedish-American. It is stereotyping to call me “white” and making various assumptions based on your understanding of what “white” is.</p>
<p>Choose to be offended! Join the party! We are having a blast!</p>
<p>:/</p>
<p>I’ve been thinking about this some more, and it occurs to me that the 24-hour news cycle can make us lose our sense of proportion. This monkey doll is the latest outrage, but honestly, it’s probably a blunder and doesn’t represent some deep-seated hidden racism in the Costco organization. But it’s news, so it’s a big deal. But I was thinking of things that, in my mind, are even more offensive, and which don’t get as much outrage because they’re old news. For example, the name of the D.C. football team, the Redskins. In that case, there is no change of the behavior, despite years of complaints.</p>
<p>The real crime is when a team called something respectable with a rich history behind it, like the Cherokee or something, changes their name to something totally generic, like the Wolves or the Eagles. Yawn.</p>
<p>But then you get into grayer areas. Eastern Michigan changed their team name from the Hurons a few years ago, because the name (as I recall) wasn’t the tribe’s original name for themselves, but a name given to them by settlers that has a pejorative origin.</p>
<p>And “Redskins” really has to go. Can you imagine a team called the Darkies with a picture of a black person on their helmets? Their stadium would get bombed, for Pete’s sake. And they would deserve it.</p>
<p>Also, the Redskins stink so bad right now that it can hardly be an honor to have them carry your name.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But…I am minority 
I need only to open my mouth and you will know.</p>
<p>
Absolutely agree!</p>
<p>Looks like the University of North Dakota may be discontinuing their mascot, The Fighting Sioux. That name always made me cringe.</p>
<p>[University</a> of North Dakota Dropping ‘Fighting Sioux’ Nickname, Logo - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520248,00.html]University”>College | Fox News)
"DICKINSON, N.D. — North Dakota’s Board of Higher Education has agreed to drop the University of North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux nickname and Indian head logo, a move intended to resolve a decades-long campus dispute about whether the name demeans American Indians.</p>
<p>The name and logo, which is a profile of an American Indian man with feathers and streaks of paint on his face, could still be saved if North Dakota’s Standing Rock and Spirit Lake Sioux tribes agree by Oct. 1 to give the university permission to use them for at least 30 years.</p>
<p>However, tribal officials say that possibility is remote. Unless the name and logo receive tribal endorsement, they will be retired for good on Aug. 1, 2010."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not much, it doesn’t
[quote]
for the most part; almost wholly; just about <a href=“dictionary.com”>/quote</a></p>
<p>I can think of a lot of stereotypes–in fact, all of them–which would not be mitigated in the least by “virtually.” but you know that already.</p>
<p>I myself belong to the US majority. I guess i know how lucky that makes me in terms of perception and access; I don’t need to look for grievances. But keep playing your game; it’s kinda cute.</p>
<p>I’ve actually wondered why nobody’s gotten in a twist about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. I’m of Irish descent. My husband is, even more so-- he’s got three or four cousins who’re nicknamed “Red”. What’s up with our not being offended by our relatives and ancestors being portrayed as pugnacious, beer-swilling idiots?</p>
<p>That’s not to say that other groups <em>shouldn’t</em> be offended by harmful stereotypes. I’m just genuinely curious, from a purely academic standpoint, as to why some of these stereotypes are embraced and others are rejected. Does it have to do with historical wounds for groups of people? Is it just that it’s not okay to stereotype a people that have been historically downtrodden? Is it “not okay” as some sort of apology from society for past trespasses? Is it okay or not okay because of some unspoken intent to insult or not insult a group of people?</p>
<p>"I’ve actually wondered why nobody’s gotten in a twist about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. "</p>
<p>Maybe because Irish Americans gave Notre Dame that name, and it refers to the aggressiveness of afootball team, not to the general behavior of Notre Dame students. At least, that’s what I’ve always assumed since Notre Dame is very popular among Irish Catholics.</p>
<p><a href=“I%20was%20about%2045%20when%20I%20learned%20that%20it%20would%20be%20a%20bad%20idea%20to%20use%20very%20cute%20rainbow%20fabric%20to%20make%20shorts%20for%20my%20all%20D’s%20friends%20at%20a%20sleep%20over…%20they%20were%20in%20middle%20school.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would it be a bad idea? </p>
<p>A rainbow flag only proclaims lack of prejudice. Isn’t that a good thing?</p>
<p>Avoiding rainbows seems a bit paranoid to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me it is ALL about intent. If I insists on taking offense when none was intended, then I’m just being a jerk. I might not like what you say, and I might ask you not to say it, and I might coach you on how I’d rather be addressed, but to be offended would be a bad choice on my part, because it just reignites the cycle of defensiveness.</p>
<p>By the way, what Notre Dame did with the Fighting Irish moniker is called co-opting, just as homosexuals have done with the word “queer”. You disarm the opposition by embracing their assault. You say, “Oh, I’m a queer, am I? Darn right I am! In fact, I’m going to put it on a t-shirt! And so will all of my friends! How do you like me now, prancing about in my queer t-shirt?” It takes the fun out of the attack, and ridicules the attacker, and the attacker gets bored and goes away. It’s quite effective.</p>
<p>garland, #47,</p>
<p>So virtual reality is “for the most part; almost wholly; just about” reality? Uh…I don’t think so. But you can think so if you want. Just don’t bump into any walls.</p>
<p>(Truthiness may not = truth)</p>
<p>
That’s why I don’t really get the problem with sports team/college mascots. Don’t you name your team based on something/someone with qualities you respect & admire? I mean no one names themselves the fighting jackasses or anything like that. But then again, there is that Stanford tree thing going on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh. Maybe that’s why the great Owl of Wisdom ain’t doin’ much for my Rice football team… ;)</p>
<p>I think Notre Dame calling its team the Fighting Irish is a form of self-deprecating humor, which is quite different from adopting symbols of somebody else’s culture as your mascot. With the Indian mascots, I think there’s room for discussion about what it means in a particular case–but surely, Redskins is beyond reasonable defense?</p>
<p>AnnudahMom, I tried to send you a second private message, but your inbox is full.</p>
<p>And virtually does not equal virtual; two separate words, two separate meanings. English is weird that way.</p>