The british and Irish Isles.

Gurgle

Also, I find the term 'Aran Islands' to be deeply offensive and misleading.
I want them renamed to be the 'Inis Mór, Inis Meáin and Inis Óirr islands'.

Sparks

ArthurF wrote:

The term "British Isles" is the universally recognised term for "Those islands located off the N/W coast of mainland Europe"

Of course, there is an alternative, worked out for precisely the reasons that people object to the term "British Isles" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands_of_the_North_Atlantic

maccor

ahh the usual debate with the usual people making the usual 'whats wrong with british' statements.

i agree that the term british shouldnt be used, mainly because most of the islands arent british.

Gurgle

maccor wrote:

ahh the usual debate with the usual people making the usual...

who the hell are you?

& These are the Brittish Isles.

Geographically, we're Brittish.
Nationality, someone Brittish could be English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh. Doesn't mean we're politically connected to the UK.

Canada is also part of America, dont hear them whinging that it should be called the continent of the united states of america and canada and mexico.

oscarBravo

maccor wrote:

i agree that the term british shouldnt be used, mainly because most of the islands arent british.

I take it you'd be in favour of renaming the Irish Sea, then?

Snickers Man

There are plenty of things worth getting into a fight over to assert our own separate identity and outlook, but frankly......this ain't one of them.

Now if somebody were to assert that Ireland, or at least the southern most five sixths were in the 'United Kingdom' I would have an issue with it, but I think British Isles as a geographical term is bearable.

thegent

A lot of people I know take offence to this term and so do I. I also take offense when people say 'just get over it'. If Irish people had just gotten over it in the past we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would still be part of the UK.
It is a geographical term but of course the English came up with it. Geographical terms have been known to change over time depending on who controls a given area of land.
Also, there is an alternative in place which is accepted and which I accept. You may have noticed, if you like wildlife programs, that Sir Richard Attenborough uses the term 'Islands Of the North Atlantic' when referring to the outdated British Isles


Read this(Wikipedia);
"Islands of the North Atlantic" (IONA) was suggested by Sir John Biggs-Davison as a less contentious alternative to the term "British Isles" to refer to Britain and Ireland and the smaller associated islands. It has been used particularly in the context of the Northern Irish "peace process", during the negotiation of the Belfast Agreement, as a neutral description of those islands. However its use has been mainly limited to this context: as of 2004 (January), the term Islands of the North Atlantic was not used in any official internet site of the British or Irish governments, apart from verbatim reports of Irish parliamentary debates discussing whether it might be used.


Its not a bad alternative.

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

A lot of people I know take offence to this term and so do I.

I take offence to people taking offence to trivia like this.

thegent wrote:

It is a geographical term but of course the English came up with it.

...and, of course, you have a source for this assertion. Not that I got an answer from the last poster in this thread whom I asked for a source.

thegent wrote:

Geographical terms have been known to change over time depending on who controls a given area of land.

Such as?

thegent wrote:

Also, there is an alternative in place which is accepted and which I accept. You may have noticed, if you like wildlife programs, that Sir Richard Attenborough uses the term 'Islands Of the North Atlantic' when referring to the outdated British Isles ... Its not a bad alternative.

It's a deeply offensive and exclusionary term. When did Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland stop being islands of the North Atlantic?

therecklessone

thegent wrote:

It is a geographical term but of course the English came up with it.

Source?

Origin of the term British Isles

In classical times, foreign sources used "Brit-" or "Prit-" with various endings and native sources used oceani insulae meaning "islands of the ocean" or insularum meaning "islands". Only in modern times has British Isles entered the English language.


Classical geographers

The inhabitants of the British Isles in classical times were the Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, who invaded Great Britain and Ireland some time before the 5th century BC. The classical writers of geographies named the group of islands after these inhabitants, using a transliteration into their own language such as Latin (e.g. Bretannae) or Greek (e.g. Βρηττανων).

Throughout Book 4 of his Geography, Strabo is consistent in spelling the island Britain (transliterated) as Prettanikee; he uses the terms Prettans or Brettans for the islands as a group. For example, in Geography 2.1.18, "...οι νοτιωτατοι των Βρηττανων βορηιοτηροι τουτον ηισιν". (...the most southern of the Brettans are further north than this)2. He was writing around AD 10, although the earliest surviving copy of his work dates from the 6th century.

Pliny the Elder writing around AD 70 uses a Latin version of the same terminology in section 4.102 of his Naturalis Historia. He writes of Great Britain: Albion ipsi nomen fuit, cum Britanniae vocarentur omnes de quibus mox paulo dicemus. (Albion was its own name, when all [the islands] were called the Britannias; I will speak of them in a moment). In the following section, 4.103, Pliny enumerates the islands he considers to make up the Britannias, listing Great Britain, Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Ptolemy is quite clear that Ireland – he calls it Hibernia – belongs to the group he calls Britannia. He entitles Book II, Chapter 1 of his Geography as Hibernia, Island of Britannia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

(courtesy of mike65)

Richard

Personally I think that say that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles is like saying that Northern Ireland isn't part of Ireland (the island). In terms of geography there isn't a problem.

I remember hearing a few years ago about a councillor in Galway (possibly the mayor) referring to the Shannon as the longest river in the British Isles. No eyebrows were raised for that. And Galway is hardly a hotbed of Unionism.

"The British and Irish Lions" is a bit of a mouthful, but "The British Lions" might imply that all of the players are British. "The British Isles" does not refer to people - and it is a much older construct anyway.

Are people going to complain about "St George's Channel" next?

Flex

I think we should just call our island and the archipeligos surrounding it by its own name. Why even have a combined designation with Britain? Nothing good ever came from the link between our island and Britain, so i dont like my country being part of the 'British Isles'.Im irish, not british.Im not from there.


Why shouldnt we change the name? whats so bad about wanting an inclusive name were our country and nationality are acknowledged alongside britain? Why are people acting like pedants about this? What do you find so wonderful about the term 'British isles' that you feel the need to be so pedantic towards people who actually do care about the name?

Hagar

Classical geographers

The inhabitants of the British Isles in classical times were the Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, who invaded Great Britain and Ireland some time before the 5th century BC. The classical writers of geographies named the group of islands after these inhabitants, using a transliteration into their own language such as Latin (e.g. Bretannae) or Greek (e.g. Βρηττανων).

Throughout Book 4 of his Geography, Strabo is consistent in spelling the island Britain (transliterated) as Prettanikee; he uses the terms Prettans or Brettans for the islands as a group. For example, in Geography 2.1.18, "...οι νοτιωτατοι των Βρηττανων βορηιοτηροι τουτον ηισιν". (...the most southern of the Brettans are further north than this)2. He was writing around AD 10, although the earliest surviving copy of his work dates from the 6th century.

Pliny the Elder writing around AD 70 uses a Latin version of the same terminology in section 4.102 of his Naturalis Historia. He writes of Great Britain: Albion ipsi nomen fuit, cum Britanniae vocarentur omnes de quibus mox paulo dicemus. (Albion was its own name, when all [the islands] were called the Britannias; I will speak of them in a moment). In the following section, 4.103, Pliny enumerates the islands he considers to make up the Britannias, listing Great Britain, Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Ptolemy is quite clear that Ireland – he calls it Hibernia – belongs to the group he calls Britannia. He entitles Book II, Chapter 1 of his Geography as Hibernia, Island of Britannia.

Personally I'd be slow to take geography lessons from people who used to the believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. They got that wrong, who knows what else they got wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

As for quoting wiki... Well in my book consensus of opinion does not necessarily constitute fact.

thegent

I understand that “desert” “Fjord” “River Basin” are geographical terms that do not change but Geographical Regions do change depending on which tribe or people control that area.

...and, of course, you have a source for this assertion.

The assertion was that its basically an English term. This is from answers.com

"The island of Great Britain during pre-Roman, Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon times before the reign of Alfred the Great (871–899). The name is derived from Brittania, which the Romans used for the portion of the island that they occupied." Answers.com

'The portion of the island they occupied' So, at that time Ireland was not under the term British Isles ,in fact the British Isles didn't exist at that time. It was only when the English crown siezed both islands that the term came into effect

And geographical regions do change depending on who controls them

“Nubia was an ancient region of northeastern Africa (southern Egypt and northern Sudan) on the Nile which was at the time considered a geographical region”
“Lusitania — ancient geographical region and Roman province of the Iberian Peninsula; corresponds roughly to modern Portugal and parts of Spain”. Answers.com

Czechoslovakia was until 1993 considered a geographical region. So too was Austria- Hungary and The British Empire.

It's a deeply offensive and exclusionary term. When did Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland stop being islands of the North Atlantic?

Iceland falls under the term Scandinavia
I think Greenland is a term itslef and Newfoundland-N.America

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

Personally I'd be slow to take geography lessons from people who used to the believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. They got that wrong, who knows what else they got wrong?

The issue is the origin of the name, where it came from and who was responsible for naming it. Their failures in astronomy are irrelvant, are you suggesting their inability to decipher the workings of the universe means they were incapable of naming a geographical entity? I suppose you believe the West Indies should be renamed because Columbus was mistaken in thinking he'd reached the Indies instead of the Americas?

Hagar wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

As for quoting wiki... Well in my book consensus of opinion does not necessarily constitute fact.

And the book of boards.ie, either provide alternate sources or accept that "in my book" = your opinion and nothing more.

Hagar

See post 44 courtesy of The Agent.

Wiki can be edited by anybody to say anything.
So it is only opinions, popular opinions maybe, but just opinions nonetheless not facts.

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

See post 44 courtesy of The Agent.

Wiki can be edited by anybody to say anything.
So it is only opinions, popular opinions maybe, but just opinions nonetheless not facts.

http://www.answers.com/british%20isles

Thats the answer.com link to the phrase "British Isles"

I'll leave it to thegent to provide a link that verifies his quote in post #44, but I don't see it in the link I've provided.

I do see it here though...

answers.com entry for Britain


As for the accuracy or lack thereof of wiki, if you have proof to the contrary I'll be glad to listen.

A Dub in Glasgo

This is taken from the link above and it covers exactly why we have 48 posts about the term 'The British Isles'

Problems with modern usage

Today the term British is usually used to describe people of things belonging to either Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However the whole island of Ireland, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are still commonly included in the 'British Isles', despite the fact that the greater part of Ireland has, since 1922, been independent of the UK as the Republic of Ireland, and that the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are not a part of UK but crown dependencies.

Many Irish people, as well as some Scottish, Welsh and Cornish nationalists, find the term British Isles proprietorial and unacceptable as being inconsistent with the modern meaning of the word British. However, Unionists in Northern Ireland attach great importance to their 'British' identity.

Hostility to the term British Isles has often been caused by its misinterpretation; this was exemplified by an embarrassing and controversial faux pas by the then American First Lady Nancy Reagan during an Irish visit. The confusion caused by the term was also highlighted during a stop-over visit to the Republic of Ireland by then Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, when he indicated that he presumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth II, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles.

The term British Isles is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in schoolbooks in the Republic of Ireland and is being phased out of textbooks4. Its usage is also decreasing in official British state documents, out of sensitivity to the concerns of some Irish, Scottish and Welsh people and the evolving geo-political relationships.

Maskhadov

Im glad there is backing for this idea and its all for the right reasons. Personally I would like to start a petition and get public backing for this idea. The british isles term is an old one. It is a phrase which was used to represent a state which no longer exists and it belongs to the late 19th century, early 20th century.

I dont mind being lumped (cant think of a good word) along with the other isles as long as it a term which is modern and reflects everyone who is in it.

The isles were called something else before britain and 'britain' is widely used in day to day speech to refer to England, Wales and Scotland. I dont thinks its fair to extend that word to encorporate another country and different words have been used to refer to these isles in line with changing times.

For me I would be quite happy with the term 'the British and Irish isles'. I think its modern and progressive plus it does reflect everyone who is in it.

canker

http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/britishisles/ wrote:

Applying the term British, or any of its variants, to citizens of the republic is both incorrect politically and politically incorrect. Evidence of the offence taken at this usage can sporadically be found in the soc.culture.irish newsgroup.

If people are crazy enough to be offended by it then I guess people shouldnt use it, for niceness sake.

Its a perfectly reasonable term in my opinion.

ronbyrne2005

anyone getting vexed over the historical/geographical term "british isles" is a sad individual and should get a life.i dont see people of british colombia up in arms! its just a historical legacy/quirk of the british empire and has nothing to do with "equality"! (lol) i dont see anyone going to the equality authority over this!

ronbyrne2005

"800 hundred years i tell ya!!" and all that crap

thegent

[QUOTE=therecklessone

]http://www.answers.com/british%20isles

Thats the answer.com link to the phrase "British Isles"

here is a quote from that link

Nonetheless today, because the 'British Isles' include the whole of Ireland, as well as three crown dependencies which are not a part of the United Kingdom, the term is considered an anachronism by some, or a source of potential confusion or offence.

I'll leave it to thegent to provide a link that verifies his quote in post #44, but I don't see it in the link I've provided

.

look up geographical area or geographical region in answers.com and youll find a list of geographical regions past and present
http://www.answers.com/topic/geographical-area-geographic-area-geographical-region-geographic-region

Capt'n Midnight

What are they called as Gaeilge ?

oscarBravo

Na hOileáin bhriontanacha?

therecklessone

thegent wrote:

therecklessone wrote:

I'll leave it to thegent to provide a link that verifies his quote in post #44, but I don't see it in the link I've provided

.

look up geographical area or geographical region in answers.com and youll find a list of geographical regions past and present
http://www.answers.com/topic/geographical-area-geographic-area-geographical-region-geographic-region

Maybe should have made it clearer. The quote I referred to was the following:

thegent wrote:

The assertion was that its basically an English term. This is from answers.com

"The island of Great Britain during pre-Roman, Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon times before the reign of Alfred the Great (871–899). The name is derived from Brittania, which the Romans used for the portion of the island that they occupied." Answers.com

That direct quote from answers.com does not come from their page on the British Isles but from their page on Britain. The two are not one and the same, please do not mix them up. The term has applied to the archipelago for over 2000 years, so could not possibly be a construct of the English.

Sources:

answers.com British Isles page

answers.com British page

You were asked for a source, you provided one which did not support your claim.

thegent wrote:

Nonetheless today, because the 'British Isles' include the whole of Ireland, as well as three crown dependencies which are not a part of the United Kingdom, the term is considered an anachronism by some, or a source of potential confusion or offence.

I have never disputed that, the fact that the thread has reached three pages is proof of that (as pointed out by another poster above). I've just questioned people's perception of the meaning of the British Isles and its historical evolution.

thegent

That direct quote from answers.com does not come from their page on the British Isles but from their page on Britain. The two are not one and the same, please do not mix them up. The term has applied to the archipelago for over 2000 years, so could not possibly be a construct of the English.

"Please don't mix them up"? Your saying not to mix up Britain with the British Isles? Is that what your saying? 'cos that doesnt make sense

I took a quote that proved that ONLY the section occupied by the Romans was called Brittania.
Scotland was Scotia and Ireland was Hibernia. Not even modern day Britain was referred to as Britain only England and Wales so how could there have been British Isles? The fact is there were no British Isles 2000 years ago it didnt exist.
ONLY when the two islands fell under English control did the term British Isles appear. Pope Adrian did not offer the lordship of Ireland to Henry11 until 1100-1200.

The fact is the term British Isles creates the impression that Ireland is linked to Britain thats a problem for alot of Irish people and I would sign a petition if there were one.

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

Your saying not to mix up Britain with the British Isles? Is that what your saying? 'cos that doesnt make sense

Actually, it does. It doesn't even take a huge intellectual stretch to figure out how it makes sense.

thegent

oscarBravo wrote:

Actually, it does. It doesn't even take a huge intellectual stretch to figure out how it makes sense.

Then please do an intellectual stretch for me.

Lennoxschips

Most people in mainland Europe think that we are in the UK, just like Scotland and Wales. About 3/4 of Dutch people I know think so anyway,

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

Then please do an intellectual stretch for me.

OK, here we go: a word can have different meanings in different contexts.

There, that wasn't hard, was it?

Let's try an analogy. Did you know that the North Sea is, by and large, east of us. :eek: Maybe we should campaign to have it renamed?

How about the West Indies, as already mentioned here - are you continually confused not to find them between Africa and the subcontinent?