The british and Irish Isles.

thegent

Lennoxschips wrote:

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,

there you go
thats because Irish people have the 'ah its grand' attitude

thegent

oscarBravo wrote:

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

There, that wasn't hard, was it?

So your saying that the fact that Ireland and its islands are grouped with the British Isles is an accident? It has nothing to do with the fact that they ruled here for so long.

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

So your saying that the fact that Ireland and its islands are grouped with the British Isles is an accident? It has nothing to do with the fact that they ruled here for so long.

Got it in one. In fact, there's been some pretty convincing evidence to that effect posted in this very thread.

thegent

oscarBravo wrote:

Got it in one. In fact, there's been some pretty convincing evidence to that effect posted in this very thread.

show me

its like saying dont mix Britain up with the British Empire

ronbyrne2005

"Originally Posted by 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,"

who gives a toss about what the dutch think? im sure they have thousands of similar misconceptions like every population in general.the world still turns. another thing did you know new south wales isnt in britain!

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote:

Got it in one. In fact, there's been some pretty convincing evidence to that effect posted in this very thread.

We are not on a British isle but an Irish isle. Just because the largest island of the group of islands is Britain does not mean every other island around it is part of Britain whether geographically or politically.
Referring to us as part of British Isles is offensive, its labelling the people on the island as British when the majority are not.
It should be renamed as British & Irlsh Isles or any other non-offensive term.

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

show me

OK.

thegent wrote:

its like saying dont mix Britain up with the British Empire

...or, don't mix Britain up with Brittany.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote:

Just because the largest island of the group of islands is Britain does not mean every other island around it is part of Britain whether geographically or politically.

Right. That's where the teeny-weeny intellectual effort comes into it: it's barely - just barely - conceivable that "British" in the context of the phrase "British Isles" doesn't mean "part of Britain".

gurramok wrote:

It should be renamed as British & Irlsh Isles or any other non-offensive term.

I've already indicated that renaming the region would be offensive to me. I guess that puts the kibosh on the idea, so.

thegent

[QUOTE=oscarBravo...or, don't mix Britain up with Brittany.

Its time for an 'intellectual stretch’, here we go, Brittany is so called because the English used to rule there and I'm sure if the people of Brittany decided that they didn’t like being associated with the British they would have the right to change the name.

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

Its time for an 'intellectual stretch’, here we go, Brittany is so called because the English used to rule there...

I'd ask for a source, but I know I'd be wasting my time. If you can't distinguish Angles from Britons, we don't have anything further to discuss here.

thegent wrote:

...and I'm sure if the people of Brittany decided that they didn’t like being associated with the British they would have the right to change the name.

But aren't you telling me that they are associated with the British? I mean, an etymological similarity in the name implies some sort of Imperial possessiveness, right?

thegent

I've already indicated that renaming the region would be offensive to me.

why?

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

why?

Because the alternatives suck. "British and Irish Isles" is an unwieldy mouthful, and I've already explained why I think IoNA is inappropriate.

thegent

I'd ask for a source, but I know I'd be wasting my time. If you can't distinguish Angles from Britons, we don't have anything further to discuss here.

My source is my history education from school and if you dont know your history you shouldn't be arguing it
Brittany means little britain, the English and French were at war for many years and the English at one time controlled large portions of France including Brittany. Im not going to fill in the gaping holes in your knowledge of history so look it up for yourself it'll do you some good

But aren't you telling me that they are associated with the British? I mean, an etymological similarity in the name implies some sort of Imperial possessiveness, right?

Good, you can read! and yes it implies a past imperial possession.



To get back to the original argument, the term British Isles implies that Ireland is still part of Britain.

thegent

When did Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland stop being islands of the North Atlantic?

That was you who didn’t know that Newfoundland was part of N America or Iceland-Scandinavia

So you didn’t listen in geography class either

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

My source is my history education from school and if you dont know your history you shouldn't be arguing it

If I've made a factual error in anything to do with history, point it out, with supporting links.

thegent wrote:

Brittany means little britain...

Sort of, yes.

thegent wrote:

...the English and French were at war for many years and the English at one time controlled large portions of France including Brittany.

True. What does that prove?

thegent wrote:

Im not going to fill in the gaping holes in your knowledge of history so look it up for yourself it'll do you some good

If I've made any factual errors, point them out.

thegent wrote:

Good, you can read! and yes it implies a past imperial possession.

Prove it. With a slightly better source than a vague reference to a remembered history class.

thegent wrote:

To get back to the original argument, the term British Isles implies that Ireland is still part of Britain.

Only if you've got some sort of inferiority complex triggered by the word "British". Which I don't, thanks.

Diorraing

Why isn't New Zealand part of the Australian Isles? (hint: New Zealand was never occupied by Australia). They form a group of islands called Oceana. Why can't we have that same dignity? I don't think we should be called the British and Irish isles either - a simple name should be used for the region (that way no-one would complain)

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

That was you who didn’t know that Newfoundland was part of N America or Iceland-Scandinavia

Newfoundland is politically part of Canada. (More accurately, it's politically part of a Canadian province.) Geographically, it's an island in the North Atlantic.

Iceland has been an independent republic since 1944. It was effectively a colony of various Scandinavian countries for a millennium or so before that. I'd like you to explain - with supporting references - how exactly it's part of Scandinavia right now. I'm particularly interested in your perspective on this, since you're so prickly about Ireland being considered British.

Oh, and geographically, Iceland is most certainly an island in the North Atlantic.

thegent wrote:

So you didn’t listen in geography class either

I must have - I got a C in honours geography in the Leaving Cert. Granted, that was 18 years ago, but at least I'm capable of doing basic research.

Thomas from Presence

thegent wrote:

My source is my history education from school and if you dont know your history you shouldn't be arguing it
Brittany means little britain, the English and French were at war for many years and the English at one time controlled large portions of France including Brittany. Im not going to fill in the gaping holes in your knowledge of history so look it up for yourself it'll do you some good

Just a point there that Brittany is not named for the Anglo-Norman occupation of France. It's name comes from the immigration of Britons that occured in the 5th century. Previously it was known as Armorica but on colonisation by Britons it was renamed Brittany meaning "Little Britain". These colonists would have much common linguistically with Celts in Cornwall and Wales and I believe there are parallels in both Cornish and Breton.

Similarly the terms Britain and British Isles both stem from the same root, implying that all geographical entities represented by the terms were posessions of the same type of celt. This implies that the Islands of Ireland et al, the Pictish, Norse and Scotti lands of modern Scotland, Orkney and Hebridies were all lands of the Briton or p-celtic tribes. This was obviously not the case. Even the term Britain is inaccurate in reality since the Britons were never the masters of the entire Island that bears their name.

Etymologically examined, the term British Isles is no more historically accurate than "West Indies" and is an archaic colonial device designed to ensure a subsumed homogenised identity within the empire. Accordingly, to restate our seperate identity we should resist its usage.

oscarBravo

Diorraing wrote:

Why isn't New Zealand part of the Australian Isles? (hint: New Zealand was never occupied by Australia).

A more pertinent question is: why aren't Australia and New Zealand part of the British Isles? (hint: they were both occupied by the British Empire).

I think you've neatly added weight to the argument that the term "British Isles" is a geographic, rather than a political, nomenclature.

Why isn't New Zealand part of the Australian Isles? Because there's no such geographical entity.

Diorraing wrote:

They form a group of islands called Oceana.

They form part of Oceania. What did the Polynesians ever do to you?

Diorraing wrote:

I don't think we should be called the British and Irish isles either - a simple name should be used for the region (that way no-one would complain)

The region already has a simple name. People complain. Deal with it.

thegent

Only if you've got some sort of inferiority complex triggered by the word "British". Which I don't, thanks.

your welcome

Brittany is not the argument The British Isles is.
I may have an inferiority complex associated to the word 'British', I may not. I personally don’t think I do but I do have a problem with the English claim that Ireland is part of the British Isles so what can you do?
What would you call it then if you don't like any of the proposed names? Or are you happy to remain part of the British Isles?

oscarBravo

thegent wrote:

I may have an inferiority complex associated to the word 'British', I may not. I personally don’t think I do but I do have a problem with the English claim that Ireland is part of the British Isles so what can you do?

It's not a question of anyone (least of all "the English") claiming that Ireland is a part of the British Isles. It's a question of a handful of people deciding that they have an issue with the name of the British Isles.

Ireland is a part of the British Isles. That's a simple statement of fact, with no political connotations.

thegent wrote:

What would you call it then if you don't like any of the proposed names? Or are you happy to remain part of the British Isles?

Short of towing the island across the Atlantic, I don't see any option but to remain part of the British Isles. I don't have an issue with the name of the region. I know I don't live in Britain. I don't care whether or not any given Dutchman knows that Ireland is not a part of the UK.

As for renaming the region: it's been tried. It didn't work. Deal with it.

Capt'n Midnight

Seeing as how the neighbours are always complaining about the rain esp. Wales/Scotland even the English too. And their national colour is British Racing Green ..

How about

The Green Isles

Speeking about the Welsh / Scots what do they prefer ?

thegent

oscarBravo wrote:

Newfoundland is politically part of Canada. (More accurately, it's politically part of a Canadian province.) Geographically, it's an island in the North Atlantic.

Geographically it’s linked to N America. The Canadian region that Newfoundland falls under is the Appalachian Region

Iceland has been an independent republic since 1944. It was effectively a colony of various Scandinavian countries for a millennium or so before that. I'd like you to explain - with supporting references - how exactly it's part of Scandinavia right now. I'm particularly interested in your perspective on this, since you're so prickly about Ireland being considered British.

I have already provided links to support my arguments but here is another
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0858050.html
To my knowledge there is no movement in Iceland towards the abolition of the status quo. In fact they are proud of their Viking heritage

Again I say, this is not the argument in question

BuffyBot

Wow, somenbody bought the party pack of shoulder chips!

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, should every single place of Earth be renamed for fear of offending someone? In all the things happening in the world at this moment in time, I can't believe people feel this is even an issue.

thegent

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not a question of anyone (least of all "the English") claiming that Ireland is a part of the British Isles. It's a question of a handful of people deciding that they have an issue with the name of the British Isles.

Its more than a handful and we wouldnt have the problem if the English had stayed at home

Ireland is a part of the British Isles. That's a simple statement of fact, with no political connotations.

Well done, it is a part of it, thats the point of this thread.

As for renaming the region: it's been tried. It didn't work. Deal with it.

It has been tried, but not for long and it will only work if people are supportive unlike you.

thegent

In all the things happening in the world at this moment in time, I can't believe people feel this is even an issue.

And alas, it is.

ronbyrne2005

british isles refers to the a group of ISLANDS, the fact that soverign countries such as ireland england wales etc exist on these land masses and that there is a chequered political history is irrelevant when regarding its usuage as a geographical description,however it arose i dont think theres any problem with its usuage,the vast vast majority of irish people dont care about this irrelevant historical term. the english who use it do it out of habit,i dont think they are "claiming the island for britain!
you dont here the welsh or scottish jumping up to complain about the term despite most of them disliking the english control of their countries in the past and their annexation into great britain.
anyone who is concerned about the term is petty or pedantic or anglophobic or a hypersensitive nationalist/republican or a joe duffy caller.
ar$eholes.

ronbyrne2005

any offense taken to the term is merely in the head of the offended, they attach an uncommon interpretation to the term and get all miffed about it!
its all in your head mate!
all in your head

Zaphod B

thegent wrote:

I do have a problem with the English claim that Ireland is part of the British Isles

Yep, must watch out for those devious English. I'm always hearing the people of London refer to "that British one out of Black Books" or talking about how they're going to see a stand-up show featuring that British lad who played the British priest in that British show Father Ted. Not to mention all the adverts saying how Guinness in Britain is now shipped over from Britain. People like that, because it was a commonly held view that somehow the Guinness in Britain was never quite as good as the Guinness in Britain.

Personally I've never had any reason to use the term "British Isles" so it wouldn't bother me if the name was changed. It doesn't really matter if a long-winded description is used in official documents, since official documents are already stuffed full of unneccessary language anyway. IONA is not great though, mainly because a terrifyingly large proportion of people wouldn't know where the North Atlantic is anyway

ronbyrne2005

"Originally Posted by thegent
I do have a problem with the English claim that Ireland is part of the British Isles"
its not a claim it's a geographical fact!the fact you have stated the existence of the british isles defeats your argument,any geographer in the world will say ireland is part of british isles. i thought you were attempting to stop the usuage of this FACTUAL word or getting another term to describe the two major islands of northwest europe rather than stoping "the english" from persecuting ya! your anglophobia is thinnly veiled.
does anyone actually think that the bbc and all other news outlets etc are gonna change a habit of a lifetime/common convention and confuse their audiences just to suit a few morons? and who would enforce the proper usuage of the term? the proper usuage of the term "british isles " police?
Get a life.