From Websters:
"2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race"
Well, my impression was that the French were a people or a nation or a class or kind of people.
I was also under the impression that they were our allies.
Whenever we tar any grouping of people with a broad brush, we automatically erase all moral distinction. To assume that there are no moral gradients within any particular grouping of people is to support an idea which has no foundation in fact. We would not want such thinking applied against us.
If one criticises a policy, it is entirely different than criticising a group of people to the last man, woman, and child, simply because of the language they speak, or the citizenship they represent.
BTW, I am sure I could have found a million worse examples in the posts of others. It happened I had just read yours, so it was natural to use it. I don't see what fundamental difference there is between using "frogs" for French or using the "N" word for Blacks. In either case, the intent is to insult and to cause offense in an indiscriminate manner. This is not the type of character I generally see in your posts, but I think the usage is unfair... |
