Well now, here's something I never knew before, and now that I know it, I feel compelled to share with my intelligent friends in the hopes that they too will feel blessed in having gained more knowledge. This directly applies to an erroneous account surrounding the universally recognized symbol of displeasure that made another few laps of social media recently.
According to SNOPES (CLICK), the go-to spot for debunking things that seem not quite right, "The oft shared premise that the origins of the one-finger gesture and its associated 4-letter word that begins with F had its roots in the 1415 battle between French and English forces at Agincourt is simple enough to debunk. The insulting gesture of extending one's middle finger originated long before the Battle of Agincourt."
Over the decades Americans have since changed up the words , the 'pluck yew' is now "f**K you" and the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute! It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used with the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as 'giving the bird.' And yew thought yew knew every plucking thing.
And for a variety of reasons, it made no military sense whatsoever for the French to capture English archers, then mutilate them by cutting off their fingers. Medieval warriors didn't take prisoners because by doing so they were observing a moral code that dictated opponents who had laid down their arms and ceased fighting must be treated humanely, but because they knew high-ranking captives were valuable property that could be ransomed for money. The ransoming of prisoners was the only way for medieval soldiers to make a quick fortune, and so they seized every available opportunity to capture opponents who could be exchanged for handsome prices. Since bowman were not valuable prisoners, though, they stood outside the chivalric system and were considered the social inferiors of men-at-arms. There was no monetary reward to be obtained by capturing them, nor was there any glory to be won by defeating them in battle. What would be the purpose of taking archers captive, cutting off their fingers, and then executing them? Why not simply kill them outright in the first place? Even if archers whose middle fingers had been amputated could no longer effectively use their bows, they were still capable of wielding mallets, battle axes, swords, lances, daggers, maces, and other weapons, as archers typically did when the opponents closed ranks with them and the fighting became hand-to-hand.
All of that makes perfect sense to me!
Flipping people off is an act as old time. The ever-subversive ancient Greeks used their middle fingers to symbolize sex (not “making love” sex, the rude, derogatory kind) and it was used to express displeasure toward someone.
In ancient Rome, giving the finger was a physical threat. The Latin phrase for the middle finger digitus impudicus literally means “unchaste finger,” and the gesture was a symbol for anally penetrating men. The nod to anal rape isn’t entirely different (though more directly violent) from the “f__k you” meaning it has today. (CLICK)









