Wouldn’t it be more like “How many of you would it take to get them underground”…ah nevermind…
Yeah, I’d find it weird that anyone would get offended at Limeys either. Well, provided whoever used it didn’t mind a similar nickname getting used back 
I’d like to thank the OP for pointing this essay out to me. I printed it out, ran some copies, and now my Government kids are using it as a prompt. 
I never suggested that British troops called the French frogs before 1778.
All I did was point out that Charlemagne, King Clovis and the coat of arms of Paris had either frogs or toads as their symbols.
It may well be that many years later the British began calling the French frogs.
I have no cite, do a google if you are so inclined
The Krauts refer to the British as “inselaffen”… lit. “island monkeys”
I think that’s on a par with us calling the French “frogs”, just a playful name for a near neighbour.
“Waiter, waiter”
“Oui, monsieur?”
“Do you have Frogs’ Legs?”
“But of course, monsieur”
“Well hop over to the kitchen and get me a sandwich”.
Arf.
Because then they would have to fight the Crips there would be chaos!
Maybe you should go ask a slopehead.
:rolleyes: Gimme a fucking break, dickwad. Totally different situation and you know it. Nice casual use of the term, again, though. And pretty hard to claim you don’t know it’s offensive now.
That was a daft example that was given but the general question you asked has more validity. Among Europeans, there are a lot of names for each country (the German one for the British quoted by Wallenstein is one of my favourites!) and generally they are all good natured. I think the question is more the intent of the person writing the article, is it in a good natured way or is it meant as an insult?
Especially with all the anti-French feelings that were (still are?) floating around in the US I think it can come across as an insult and maybe it was meant that way.
I’m tempted to say that between, for example, the British and the French we’ve earned the right to some good natured bantering between each other (heck, we tried to kill each other for long enough!) and that it’s all pretty much of a joke. But for an outsider to the “group” it sounds a bit odd, especially one that in recent times was espousing such things as “freedom fries” because the other country didn’t agree with them. Does that make any sort of sense?
Has anyone noticed that the article is satirical? The author is intentionally posing as someone who uses offensive terms.
Right. Cervaise apparently can’t figure out the difference between:
Russki = Literally “Russian”
Mick = a common Irish name
Irish twins = A reference to the fact that Irish tend to, or maybe used to tend to like big families, for whatever reason
Frog = a term of dubious origin which some find offensive and some don’t
Roast beef = a reference to culinary culture
and
Slopehead = a caveman or retard
:rolleyes:
And then there’s the fact that in the other discussion, I was stating that that term is offensive. I know that from personal experience, consensus among Asians I know, and consensus online, including the five websites I linked to that note its offensiveness. In this thread I was asking if people were really offended by these terms because I don’t know and they seem, IMHO, much more innocuous. But why am I even wasting my time with this? I should not have to explain myself in response to a comment that was nothing more than trolling.
And the only time I get tetchy about being called a Brit is when uttered by ill-meaning Irishmen.
Actually not true. I get more tetchy about it from Americans, because they invariable say it with such a degree of patronization. And it is pretty common in the media to describe the British here.
But I will say I did not like being called it in various parts of Belfast.
Wait, really? I’ve used it all my life and thought it was just shorthand and acceptable. Brits and Yanks are both non-insulting terms I thought. What would even make Brit insulting? Where does the patronizing come into play?
It generally speaking does not bother me. It bothered me being called a “fucking Brit” in a pub in Belfast, as the tone was not the friendliest.
From the American media, I tend to feel that they imply the word “plucky” before every use of Brit. I just get a feeling of being patted on the head when it is said.
Friends call me it all the time, and I don’t worry at all. I’m not overly keen on strangers doing it, though I tend just to shrug, and it is certainly one stage better than the (oh too common) habit of putting on a Dick Van Dyke quality “Cockney” accent to talk to me when you have just met me…
I could well understand not liking being called a “fucking Yank”, but I think it would be the first part and not the second.
I know when I was in Scotland and Northern England, I would often get variants of “so you’re a Yank.” I never took it as anything but a question. In a similar situation would you prefer to be asked, “Are you from England?” to “So you’re a Brit?”
Don’t get me wrong - being called a Brit by strangers is incredibly low down on my list of irritations. Its use by the media, on the other hand, is significantly higher. Bystrangers it just strikes me as a little presumptuous - and I wouldn’t refer to an American I had just met as a Yank either.
Trust me, though, the word fucking wasn’t intended to be the insulting part of the phrase fucking Brit.
OK, I know I did not mind Yank, I was surprised someone would mind Brit. From what you are saying it is fairly minor though.
It’s all in the time and place, though. On this board I self-identify as a Brit readily.
Meanwhile, on my wine rack is a bottle of L’Héritier-Guyot framboise liqueur with a picture of a guitar-playing frog on the label. Ipsi dixeunt!
Waiter, what is this frog doing in my soup?
The backstroke.
I believe there are several states in the lower, sweatier portion of the US which might take issue with this generalization.
If I recall aright, the term “Yankee” was indeed originally intended as an insult, and no doubt is still used as such in some countries (I think it’s customary to add “dog” or “go home” as a suffix). Americans, secure in the knowledge that anything referring to us is automatically swell, foiled the intent by embracing the term.
If history had played out slightly different, the US might have embraced some other derogatory nickname, and today New Yorkers might be cheering at baseball games in Amerifag Stadium.