The british and Irish Isles.

Daithio

Diorraing wrote:

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)

Australia and New Zealand are a far greater distance apart than Britain and Ireland so this is a bad analogy.

The argument for change of name are ridiculous. These islands were called the British Isles because they are geographically close to each other and it makes sense to have a collective name for the group. It's just a geographical label. There is nothing political about it whatsoever. The term British isles was in place a long time before either nation existed, and the fact that some people abroad are ignorant enough not to know that the U.K. and Ireland are separate enitities is no reason to change a name which has been in place since Roman times.

therecklessone

thegent wrote:

"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.

Dear oh dear...

The archipelago has been referred to by a single name for over two thousand years, and the term British Isles derives from terms used by classical geographers to describe the island group. Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (iv.xvi.102) records of Great Britain, "It was itself named Albion while all the islands about which we shall soon briefly speak were called the Britanniae.

and

The inhabitants of the British Isles in classical times were the Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, who invaded 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).

and

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.

That source one more time

Registering yet?

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.

Like the term North America suggests Canada is part of the United States?

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,

Then I would question the standard of education in mainland Europe. Do you honestly think renaming the islands would change that? Ever tried to speak English to a local in Europe?

Thomas from Presence wrote:

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.

Why, not secure in your nationality? Feel threatened by perfidious Albion? Personally, I feel more than comfortable being Irish, and I don't need my seperate identity to be restated

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote:

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".

Yes it does, We are a separate island, a bit of intellectual effort would understand that when a map is viewed, 2 islands, 1 Brtain, 1 Ireland...NOT 2 islands names Britain!!

oscarBravo wrote:

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

Well, your obviously proud to be Bristish and your roots.
On the otherhand, i'm proud to be Irish.

Diorraing

Perhaps the dictionary definition of British would come in handy here:
=> Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture.
=> Of or relating to the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=British

Maskhadov

How come most irish people never use the phrase "the British Isles" when they are talking about Ireland and Britain ? Most people use "these isles" when they are talking about something that is common between the two nations.

I think is that we dont consider ourselves to be part of Britain and rightly so. We do realise that Britain is a excellent neighbour and we share many many values with them.

The British often use the word "British Isles" which suits their interpertation of the two nations off the European continent. They will continue to use that phrase until someone tells them they have to use a new phrase.

The simple fact is that they can continue to use the phrase "british isles" if they want to strictly refer to their own island and the very small isles around them. But if they want to encompass all of the isles they have to use a modern 21st (maybe it should have been done in the 1920's) phrase like "the british and irish isles".

It only takes a political decision (and that doesnt take much of an effort) to change it and everything else would fall into place. Records, maps, internet , media etc would all adopt the new phrase.

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

It only takes a political decision (and that doesnt take much of an effort) to change it and everything else would fall into place. Records, maps, internet , media etc would all adopt the new phrase.

By whom dare I ask?

thegent

Like the term North America suggests Canada is part of the United States?

I'm sure that even you can see the difference there, maybe you can do one of your famous intellectual stretches for us again.

Now, listen
when you quote something you should quote the source not some modern second hand interpretation of the source. Dont worry you'll get the hang of it
Here is a direct quote from Pliny the elder, no mention of British Isles there and it’s a DIRECT quote not some modern historian using modern terminology to describe ancient lands as your last quote did.

Hibernia lies beyond Britannia, the shortest crossing being from the lands of the Silures, a distance of 30 miles.1 Of those remaining (islands) none has a circumference exceeding 125 miles, so it has been said. Indeed, there are 40 Orcades [Orkneys] separated narrowly from one another, 7 Acmodae [Shetlands], 30 Hebudes [Hebrides], and between Hibernia and Britannia (the islands of) Mona [Anglesey], Monapia [Man], Riginia [Racklin], Vectis [White-horn], Silumnus [Dalkey] and Andros [Bardsey]; beneath (Britain) are Sambis [Sian] and Axanthos [Ushant], and in the oppposite direction, sprinkled in the Mare Germanicum [North Sea], are the Glaesariae [Glass Islands], called by the Greeks in recent times the Electrides, from the amber2 which is produced there.

http://www.roman-britain.org/pliny.htm

Registering Yet? mmmm eehh

Evolution of the words
The meanings of Britain and British have evolved over time and as they have gained political significance.
In 325 BC the Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia visited a group of islands which he called Pretaniké, the principal ones being Albionon (Albion) and Ierne (Erin). (The records of this visit date from much more recent times, so there is room for these details to be disputed.) To linguists, this suggests the Brythonic inhabitants called themselves Priteni.
Because of resistance to Roman rule in Armorica (which was supported by Celtic aristocrats in the islands) Julius Caesar responded with two invasions of the main island in 55 and 54 BC.
Some believe that when the Romans took over the southern part of Great Britain they named it after the Brigantes, one of the largest Celtic tribes living there.

http://www.answers.com/topic/britain
The name has gained 'political significance' and it has always been used politically! and who had political control over the islands? Even you can answer that.
also note.”they named it after the Brigantes” The celtic peoples did not name it themselves

Want some more?

However the Romans derived the name, they called their possessions Britannia and the earlier Celtic inhabitants Britanni. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the name Britannia largely fell into abeyance and tended to be used in an historical sense, referring to the Roman possessions. The Roman names for the island and its inhabitants were anglicised to Britain and Britons.

http://www.answers.com/topic/britain

So, it looks like the name came from the Romans, died out and was revived by the Anglo-Saxons (or in other words) the English.


How many times do I have to prove what I've been saying all along?

FTA69

Maskhadov wrote:

We do realise that Britain is a excellent neighbour

Yeah. Simply spiffing. Do you think they'd loan me a cup of sugar?

TheBigLebowski

Daithio wrote:

Australia and New Zealand are a far greater distance apart than Britain and Ireland so this is a bad analogy.

The argument for change of name are ridiculous. These islands were called the British Isles because they are geographically close to each other and it makes sense to have a collective name for the group. It's just a geographical label. There is nothing political about it whatsoever. The term British isles was in place a long time before either nation existed, and the fact that some people abroad are ignorant enough not to know that the U.K. and Ireland are separate enitities is no reason to change a name which has been in place since Roman times.

Well said.

Maskhadov

therecklessone wrote:

By whom dare I ask?

Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair

Thomas from Presence

therecklessone wrote:

Dear oh dear...




Why, not secure in your nationality? Feel threatened by perfidious Albion? Personally, I feel more than comfortable being Irish, and I don't need my seperate identity to be restated

My security with my national identity is irrelevant. When a company is managing the identity of their products it is crucial and important that their product is demarcated from the competition. How many times have you heard of brand wars were trade names, livery and graphical devices are fought over?

I have seen the historically false term "British Isles" on maps thus causing confusion as to what constitutes Britishness. Similarly to Mad Max Cola using the red white livery of Coca Cola causes a confusion to the consumer. If either product garners a bad reputation for inferior quality both suffer in the perceptions of the consumer who cannot discern them.

Remember mad cow disease? There was much confusion internationally of whether Irish beef was potentially infected due to a perception that Ireland and UK suffered from the same crooked farming policies. I believe such confusion stems from the uses of such terms as the British Isles. Practically the term confuses our 'brands' and ties our reputations to those ignorant to our quite distinct situations.

No need for a new term. When I talk about France and Germany I don't have to coin a new phrase I talk about France and Germany. So when refferring to the islands of Britian and Ireland I refer to them as just that.

therecklessone

thegent wrote:

I'm sure that even you can see the difference there, maybe you can do one of your famous intellectual stretches for us again.

Ah now gent, credit where its due. That's oscarbravo's famous intellectual stretch, I couldn't possibly claim that as my own.

thegent wrote:

Now, listen
when you quote something you should quote the source not some modern second hand interpretation of the source. Dont worry you'll get the hang of it
Here is a direct quote from Pliny the elder, no mention of British Isles there and it’s a DIRECT quote not some modern historian using modern terminology to describe ancient lands as your last quote did.

Congratulations! Gent has found a source! And quoted it! And linked to it!

Except you neglected to read the source before you offered it as "proof". Shall we go through it together? Lets.

Opposite to this region [the Rhine delta] lies the island of Britannia, famous in the Greek records and in our own; it lies to the north-west, facing, across a wide channel, Germania, Gallia and Hispania,1 countries which constitute by far the greater part of Europe. It was itself named Albion, while all the islands about which we shall soon briefly speak were called the Britanniae.

Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia Liber IV XVI 102

That directly preceeds the paragraph you quoted (XVI 103) and so "all the islands about which we shall soon speak" are the islands you've helpfully enumerated. Good work.

Source, I think you might know this one already

Of course, Pliny wasn't alone in referring to the Archipelago in such terms. Courtesy of the wiki we have Ptolemy's The Geography, of which Book II Chapter 1 is entitled Hibernia, Island of Britannia (or Location of Hibernia island of Britannia). Don't believe me? Look!!!:eek:

thegent wrote:

So, it looks like the name came from the Romans, died out and was revived by the Anglo-Saxons (or in other words) the English.

The first official use of the the political term Great Britain dates from 1707 when the Treaty of Union brought the Kingdoms of England and Scotland together to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. The two kingdoms had shared a common monarch since 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited the Englsh throne as James I of England (and styled himself James I of Great Britain)

All of which is predated by the work of Renaissance mapmakers Gerardus Mercator, and Sebastian Munster who produced maps bearing the term British Isles in the 16th Century. Abraham Artelius (creator of the modern atlas) produced a map in 1571 entitled "Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae, sive Britannicar. insularum descriptio" which translates as "a description of England, Scotland and Ireland, or the British Isles" (courtesy of the wiki)

thegent wrote:

How many times do I have to prove what I've been saying all along?

Since I consider that your first serious attempt, I give it a C- for effort. I really should dock you more marks for chiding me for relying on "some modern second hand interpretation of the source" instead of primary sources, then quoting answers.com to me on two seperate occassions. Physican, heal theyself.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with The Corinthian's suggestion on page 1 that it is the British who should rename their state, as the same ancient geographers who gave the archipelago the name Britanniae or Brittania referred to the current entity of Great Britain as Albion...

This is my last response to this thread, I've wasted enough of my time on it (which ironically was my problem with the suggestion in the first place, I think there are far more pressing issues we should concern ourselves with than wasting time and effort on petty nationalist gestures)

murphaph

I can't see what all the fuss is about. Ireland is an independent, successful (relative to the bleak 80's anyway), open country and our political entity sitting on an island which is part of a geographic entity called the British Isles is fine by me. Flapping about nomenclature is pathetic IMO-it makes us look like a bunch of gombeens and we aren't. We have nothing to prove to anyone.

I have to remind a lot of the "I have nothing to do with Britain" brigade that many of us have at some point got Anlo-Norman blood into our ancestry. I hope you don't all feel 'dirty' knowing that.

Freelancer

Maskhadov wrote:

How come most irish people never use the phrase "the British Isles" when they are talking about Ireland and Britain ? Most people use "these isles" when they are talking about something that is common between the two nations.

I think is that we dont consider ourselves to be part of Britain and rightly so. We do realise that Britain is a excellent neighbour and we share many many values with them.

The British often use the word "British Isles" which suits their interpertation of the two nations off the European continent. They will continue to use that phrase until someone tells them they have to use a new phrase.

Have to? The offical title of the tour that sparked this off, was the british and irish lions. Thats what they were called, the British press invariably shortened it to British Lions, while our press did not and called them by their full name.

We invariably make the distinction. How exactly do you plan on making the UK adhere to this? Every time a newsreader makes the mistake they get fined a pound? Oh and every time they refer to Daniel Day Lewis as english as well? How about when they make the dreadful mistake of calling U2 the most successful rock group from the British Isles?

Look theres a degree of envy and jealous on the part of the side wanting to make the change. We recognise the distinction the british press occasionaly forget. Get over it.

doh.ie

The distinction is widely recognised, except for a few newspapers and weather forecasters who forget. Ultimately, I don't think it matters all that much to most people. The 'colonial baggage' our grandparents might have had hasn't stretched to today's young people, who have far more pressing
concerns.

As far as I'm concerned, and as several posters have mentioned, there's the British Isles, but the Irish Sea. (How would we feel if it was suggested it become 'the British and Irish Sea'?) Sounds like a fair trade-off to me.

In terms of getting riled about issues like this, I'd take far more exception to UK companies who use "Eire" (yes, that old debate) in some of their legalese or in addresses, and to movie/media companies who can't be bothered to create www.company.ie as well as the co.uk one for use in their Irish advertising.

Maskhadov

Freelancer wrote:

Have to? The offical title of the tour that sparked this off, was the british and irish lions. Thats what they were called, the British press invariably shortened it to British Lions, while our press did not and called them by their full name.

We invariably make the distinction. How exactly do you plan on making the UK adhere to this? Every time a newsreader makes the mistake they get fined a pound? Oh and every time they refer to Daniel Day Lewis as english as well? How about when they make the dreadful mistake of calling U2 the most successful rock group from the British Isles?

Look theres a degree of envy and jealous on the part of the side wanting to make the change. We recognise the distinction the british press occasionaly forget. Get over it.

If the offical name for these islands is the British and Irish Isles then the vast majority of the media, internet, people, maps etc will use the correct term. The same way the news says sith for sixth. Its not a big deal. If people want to continue using the old phrase (just British) then its their choice but offically the name would be British and Irish.

I dont have any hangups. I just think its time to bring things into the 21st century.:)

robinph

Did we manage to get Switzerland removed from the continent of Europe yet seeing as they never signed up to be part of the political entity Europe?

Maskhadov

Europe is a geographical region. Same as America(s) Asia and Africa.

Britain is a word which refers to a nation state.

They should amend the "British isles" which refers to a nation state to a new phrase that incorporates another nation state beside it "British and Irish Isles". Either that or properly use a geographical phrase like north sea islands etc.

robinph

Maskhadov wrote:

Europe is a geographical region. Same as America(s) Asia and Africa.

Europe is a geographical term that includes the state of Switzerland.

and

Europe is a political term that does not include the state of Switzerland.

bonkey

robinph wrote:

Europe is a political term that does not include the state of Switzerland.

Not so.

Europe is only a political term in that sense only when it is mis-used as a replacement term for the European Union.

murphaph

doh.ie wrote:

In terms of getting riled about issues like this, I'd take far more exception to UK companies who use "Eire" (yes, that old debate) in some of their legalese or in addresses <snip>

Eire is the official name of this country, or in english, Ireland

doh.ie

murphaph wrote:

Eire is the official name of this country, or in english, Ireland

If the UK companies want to print the addresses or refer to the country's name through Irish, great, but otherwise a campaign to stamp out its use by those writing/speaking in English would be far preferable to me than to have one on 'British Isles'.

I understand 'Ireland' alone might be something they would wish to avoid for fear of causing offence to those in the North, but 'ROI' or 'Republic of Ireland' would be just as good instead.

Maskhadov

robinph wrote:

Europe is a geographical term that includes the state of Switzerland.

and

Europe is a political term that does not include the state of Switzerland.

The fact is that Europe is a geographical region makes it ok to use to describe anything or anyone in that region.

The European Union is a political entity that doesnt include Switzerland. It is not valid to refer to any state that has not joined it.

Britain is a term used to describe the nation state. It does not refer to a geographical region.


Bluring the two is a mistake, and its not valid to make a comparision.

magpie

Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, who invaded Great Britain and Ireland some time before the 5th century BC

Until we can throw off the yoke of 1500 years of merciless Celtic oppression of our native soil Ireland can never be at rest.

robinph

Maskhadov wrote:

The fact is that Europe is a geographical region makes it ok to use to describe anything or anyone in that region.

The European Union is a political entity that doesnt include Switzerland. It is not valid to refer to any state that has not joined it.

Britain is a term used to describe the nation state. It does not refer to a geographical region.


Bluring the two is a mistake, and its not valid to make a comparision.

So there are two different terms to describe the geographical area of Europe and the political entity of the European Union then?

To me that seems very similar to the two different terms of 'Britain' being used to describe a country in political terms and the 'British Isles' as a geographical area then.

ronbyrne2005

yes theres nothing else for it, we must get the name of this country changed back to its original irish name on all british media outlets by tony blair,"ireland" is the english version and suggests the british controlled us and want to control us in the future.also the cook islands should be changed to their original polynesian name as being named after captain cook is "unequal" "shows the british think the cook islands are theirs" etc etc

fools

ronbyrne2005

magpie wrote:

Until we can throw off the yoke of 1500 years of merciless Celtic oppression of our native soil Ireland can never be at rest.

LOL gotta hate those celts! lets change the name to whatever the iron age people called it! to avoid any controversy and all that!

magpie

LOL gotta hate those celts! lets change the name to whatever the iron age people called it! to avoid any controversy and all that!

I think the ancestors of the Beaker People might have an issue with you using the language of the Iron Age oppressors, so its probably best when people ask us where we come from to point at the horizon and say "Ugh".

Alternately the Chuckies in the house, as Camp Jim says, should "Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it"

Maskhadov

robinph wrote:

So there are two different terms to describe the geographical area of Europe and the political entity of the European Union then?

To me that seems very similar to the two different terms of 'Britain' being used to describe a country in political terms and the 'British Isles' as a geographical area then.

Yes there are two seperate names.

I think its pretty different because Europe encompasses 30+ nations. Britian is in widepread use today to refer to 3 nation. Plus the fact that there was a geographical name on the islands before "Britain" came along and the fact that the British Empire has gone from Ireland in the 1920's.

thegent

therecklessone wrote:

Ah now gent, credit where its due. That's oscarbravo's famous intellectual stretch, I couldn't possibly claim that as my own.

I apologise, I mixed you up with the other one who was going off the subject and arguing about the Romans. Did I overestimate you? You can stretch intellectually can't you?

Congratulations! Gent has found a source! And quoted it! And linked to it!

Have a read through the thread I have given sources to back up all my information.

Courtesy of the wiki we have Ptolemy's The Geography, of which Book II Chapter 1 is entitled Hibernia, Island of Britannia (or Location of Hibernia island of Britannia).

It has already been establishes (in this thread, I might add) that 'the wiki' is an unreliable source as anyone can edit it

The first official use of the the political term Great Britain dates from 1707 when the Treaty of Union brought the Kingdoms of England and Scotland together to form the Kingdom of Great Britain.

I’m not sure which argument you’re making because you are backing me up here. 'Britain' had been used politically since Roman times then it died out as a term and was re-ignited with the Act of Union.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with The Corinthian's suggestion on page 1 that it is the British who should rename their state,

Maybe they should! There are lots of Scots Welsh and Cornish who take offense to the term British. Why is that? Are they foolish too? It’s obvious it’s a term used by the English.
Like my grandfather used to say
‘There are two types of British, the ones who want a passport and the English living abroad'

This is my last response to this thread

At last, you surrender.