@Cachimbo - I must say that, realistically, American teens don't know that reference to frog. Most think that name comes from WWII & WWII like Jerry and Gook and don't realize just how offensive those three are to the people they reference.

Cachimbo, unfortunately convincing any of the people around here that something is offensive is a fool's errand, since either they won't believe you or they'll insist that words are only offensive because the victim is hyper-sensitive. And of course, "ignorance" will be touted as a legitimate defense.

Why is Jerry offensive? Or Frog, for that matter? Not doubting it, I just don't understand.

" I'm trying to raise awareness."

Yes, I'm sorry, I really wasn't aware of those events. In all honestly, I thought you were just trying to cause a fuss.

With that being said, I'm just trying to raise awareness that the adults on this site should act like it.

Right. I know. Which is why I'm not fighting him or chastising him.

I am however saying that ignorance is not an excuse. I'm also suggesting that once you know better, the right thing to do is apologize and find a better way to insult the fucker who, on top of being antagonistic, just put you in your place! (kidding, of course... partly anyway).

I'm also taking issue with the idea that there are degrees where slurs of that nature happen. Granted, frog doesn't resound like nigger does. But ask yourself why. It's certainly not because of how they suffered, because French Canadians (and not just Québécois) have suffered a great deal, trust me. (Where do you think N-O's Cajun population comes from? How do you think that trip went?)

It might have to do with numbers, or the fact that there was no civil war about it here. Funnily enough, however, emancipation came around the same time for both groups. I think it's more than mere coincidence.

But hells! I'm not about to write a history of Québec here and try to convince you all. The point is simple though: frog, pepsis, nigger, gook, gino, chink, etc. are derogatory terms, all of them.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know why Frog became the way to undermine Québec's french speaking population. It's worth looking into, I'm sure. Might have to do with the sound of the word, which has an echo of the "Fr" at the beginning of French or Frenchie. Might have to do with some historical figure... I don't know.

Frog used to refer to France, no? Not sure how it became offensive though.

From Wikipedia:

Frog
(Canada, UK and US) A French person. Prior to 19th century, referred to the Dutch (as they were stereotyped as being marsh-dwellers). When France became Britain's main enemy, replacing the Dutch, the epithet transferred to them,[72][73] due to the French recipe for eating frogs' legs (see comparable French term Rosbif). Also used in Canada to refer to both the French and French Canadians, and occasionally incorrectly as more broadly to people from Quebec who are not, in fact, necessarily French or French speaking.[74]

Cheers Draug! Had no idea that it came from there.

I like the way it says "to refer" without any further qualifications!

"and occasionally incorrectly"

lol As if it *is* correct to call the others "frogs."

Right!

lol

Just quoting Wikipedia. :-)

What gets me is the misuse of the word epithet. somebody needs to proof Wikipedia... :-)

It wasn't misused. ..

I knew that.

I unmuted Dip33 for a sec, to see what else he had been saying, if anything.

I of course accept the apology and repeat that I was less offended personally than offended at the thought that racist slurs could be deemed a justifiable tool in our forum bouts. As far as that particular incident is concerned, I've moved on.

It saddens me, however, that Dip33 decided to mute the thread under the justification that it is only going downhill and leading no where. Ignorance is one thing. Revelling in it is another. That's just sad.

And for the record, I don't think it's a typically American thing. I fear the problem is much more widespread than that, and knows little borders.

I would have chosen pejorative there, instead of epithet. Epithets can be derogatory in nature, but don't have to be as the core definition is just "a charcterizing word or phrase". Pejoratives *are* derogatory by their very nature.

Epithet means term of abuse, and that is how wikipedia used it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Epithet
ep·i·thet/ˈepəˌTHet/Noun: 1.An adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality regarded as characteristic of the person or thing mentioned.

Just stop.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epithet

b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epithet

2. An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=epithet

S: (n) name, epithet (a defamatory or abusive word or phrase)

http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/epitheterm.htm

In contemporary usage, epithet often carries a negative connotation and is treated as a synonym for "term of abuse" (as in the expression "racial epithet")

"'I am working on a piece about nationalism with a focus on epithet as a smear word,' writes David Binder, my longtime Times colleague, 'which was still a synonym for 'delineation' or 'characterization' in my big 1942 Webster’s but now seems to be almost exclusively a synonym for ‘derogation’ or ‘smear word.’ . . . In the past century, [epithet] blossomed as 'a word of abuse,' today gleefully seized upon to describe political smears."
(William Safire, "Presents of Mind." The New York Times, June 22, 2008)

It looks like this is a job for a *real* dictionary!

ep*i*thet, n. 1. a characterizing word or phrase added to or used in place of the name of a person or thing. 2. a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt. [1570-80; < L epitheton epithet, adjective < Gk epitheton epithet, something added]


Random House Webster's College Dictionary. Random House, New York. 2000.

Evidently in Draugnar's world, if a word has multiple definitions it's not a real word.

da da da DA da DA!

SUPER DICTIONARY

why are you all defining this word? Epithet often is disparaging, but doesn't have to be.

Most words that have been around for more then a few hundred years have had their meanings altered at least slightly by years of unintentional slang and the gradual shift of languages. It's not surprising that the meaning of a less common word would be debatable. Good luck coming to a consensus on one "correct" meaning.

*Headdesk*

my contribution to the discussion:

http://www.despair.com/maturity.html