Posted on 01/12/2005 11:42:10 AM PST by BMC1
Is it really so bad to refer to an entire nation of people as frogs?
Last summer, when I was giving a speech on Franco-American relations — shortly before the publication of Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France — I made a frog joke. It involved a stuffed pig, a barbeque, and, well, you sort of had to be there. But it was definitely a quip about the French. The audience snickered, though a few people exchanged nervous glances. They clearly wondered if it was appropriate to laugh when somebody referred to the French as frogs.
Lighten up, I thought. Think about it: If we aimed to insult, truly and deeply and venomously, then we could skip right over cute green amphibians and compare the French to the frogs' warty cousins, the toads. Or, in honor of Pepe LePew (as well as international perceptions about French bathing habits), we could call them skunks. Or we might allude to something else entirely and call them chickens. Or maybe even cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Given this range of name-calling options, what's so bad about frogs as a national nickname? The good people at Texas Christian University don't consider frogs a derisive word. Their sports teams are called the Horned Frogs. Go Frogs!
As it happens, frogs have thin skins — and so do the French.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I always wondered if the "reporter" who asked that question wasn't a bit on the "effeminate" side of masculinity.
FROG
>>Okay, I give up. Why would I need a new keyboard?
You don't.
*I* was sipping soda while reading your reply.
-R
Let's not call them anything, let's just ignore them.
Ohh....sorry!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.