Re: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

- hi; in rasfwr article,
<ddfr-9BB088.22412103052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
     ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "David Friedman" compounded:
>              mike weber <fairportfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>              Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>                      David Friedman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Wogs start at Calais. Everyone knows that.
>>>
>>>That's "Frogs". The other is a very offensive term for "people with
>>>a touch of the tar-stick about them".
>> 
>>Actually, i forget where the line David quoted appears originally, but
>>it's pretty much a direct quote of a fairly well-known line, and th[e]
>>word was definitely "wogs".
>> 
>>And, yes, i know what the basi[c] meaning of the term is.
>
>And the point of the phrase is that it implies that non-English speaking 
>Europeans are more like Arabs and Indians and such than they are like 
>the British--which is a nice way of describing extreme British 
>insularity.
>
	- or it might be, were it a correct rendering of a common
	british (or english) phrase. which it isn't.
	  it _may_ be a confusion of two rather similar-sounding
	common english (dunno 'bout north of the border) phrases,
	one closely modelled on the other, and now perhaps rather
	more common than the original [a]:

	               "frogs begin at calais"

	                         and

	               "wogs begin at watford"


	- frogs, krauts, huns, boche, wops, dagos, taffs, micks
	and paddies - all of these derogatory terms and more -
	are (or in some cases were) common, and *none* of them
	were includable, nor included in "wogs" - nor did, nor
	do any of them include "wogs", for all that many of the
	european nations concerned now have sizeable "coloured
	asian" communities - many of them third generation and
	beyond natives of europe, as are ours of the uk.

	- nor are any of the above included, nor includable in
	"niggers" - though the same observations as to the act-
	ual natal origins of much of the european populations
	of "black-skinned" peoples applies: though here it is
	somewhat more likely a "white" racist [b] might casually
	include "wogs" amongst "niggers", and/or vice-versa. [c]

	- but the average uneducated extreme english insular is
	well capable of discriminating between the various (and
	currently politically unsound to recognise, to cross a
	current thread) races of humankind who differ in colour:

	   indeed, this may well be the *only* basis upon which
	they are able to exercise discrimination between members
	of humanity, beyond those of sex and age, and personal
	knowledge: it is certainly the fundamental (and excess-
	ively simplistic - not to mention objectionable) recog-
	nition upon which their politics is commonly based.

	- hth, hand - tdwsc!

	- love, a ppint. happy to have even half a shop open again
	    [please drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g",
	        should you wish to cc. to, or email, me]

	[a] - though i'm unsure as to which in fact antedates
	      the other, from my own personal fifty-six years
	      of experience in london, york, lancaster (etc.)

	[b] - we are also blessed with racists of various other
	      hues of skin; are not merkia & other countries?

	[c] - neither category would normally include - nor ever
	      be included amongst - "gyppoes"
-- 
   "...and then, because she's blonde, i thought, "we'll kill her.""
                    - lindsay davis, "book club"
          on radio4, 16:20 bst 8/6/06 (6/8/06 for merkins)