[Article] Folens to wipe 'British Isles' off the map in new atlas

shltter

Metrobest wrote:

Well said, Exit.

When I visited Melbourne's Immigation Museum a while ago, I was fascinated to look at the posters from the early part of the century aimed at attracting British immigrants to Australia. They featured a giant map of Britain (ie. the British Isles). At that point, Ireland was, in the eyes of the rest of the world, as British as Hertfordshire.

Just like the way the vast majority of Irish people refer to their city break in Barcelona as a trip to "Spain" - blissfully unaware that the majority of the 7 million Catalans don't see themselves as Spanish and want an end to Madrid rule.

The Barcelona people excuse our ignorance of their identity; in the same spirit, we should allow the rest of the world to refer to the "British Isles", even if we may not use the term ourselves. We are an independent country. Let's develop a thicker skin about these things.

And how many barcelona residents did you question on this subject

For example the formula one grand prix is always refered to as the Catalyuna grand prix and never the spainish grand prix.

But let us imagine that you are right if the catalans won their independence from spain do you think they would be happy to be called spanish or would they as much as possible ensure that people were aware that catalonia was not part of Spain.
That is all that Ireland is doing the term causes confusion because it suggests that Ireland is part of the british political entity the proof of that is for example Nancy Reagans mistaken presumption we were british or Gorbachevs presumption that Elizabeth Windsor was the head of state here.

The term causes confusion and offence so it should be dropped

shltter

Navan Junction wrote:

And the gas thing is that the British called it that to denote what was on the other side of that body of water.

It's not called the Irish sea because the Irish wanted it to be called that. The Welsh sea would be a better name form this side of it.

It is the one thing that we do share with Britain, but to honest I couldn't care less what it is called.

I agree could not give a flying **** what that body of water is called.

Exit

shltter wrote:

The term Irish sea... infers nothing in regards to anyones nationality

And neither does the British Isles. It's a geographical term. Your passport says you're Irish, and everyone in Ireland knows that they're Irish, so how does that term infer that your nationality is anything else?

In the same way, does the term 'North America' infer that Canadians and Mexicans are citizens of the USA?

corktina

Heresey to say it......BUT all occupants of British Isles are british.....Occupants of Great Britain are Britains (or British if you like ) Occupants of Ireland are irish...yes even youse Northerners....Occupants of the Republic (and allies) are Irish....

aLL TO DO WITH cAPITALS...

luckat

I seem to remember that way back in the 1950s or so geographers were through this, and the international geographers' association decided that 'these islands' would now be called the North Atlantic Isles.

mike65

But let us imagine that you are right if the catalans won their independence from spain do you think they would be happy to be called spanish or would they as much as possible ensure that people were aware that catalonia was not part of Spain.

I would'nt call them Spanish but I might say they are from Iberia! I would'nt be wrong even if they took offence.

Mike.

Voipjunkie

Exit wrote:

And neither does the British Isles. It's a geographical term. Your passport says you're Irish, and everyone in Ireland knows that they're Irish, so how does that term infer that your nationality is anything else?

In the same way, does the term 'North America' infer that Canadians and Mexicans are citizens of the USA?

No it infers correctly that they are North Americans similar to the term European Union not all European states are members but the citizens are still European.
The arguement that it is just a geographical term and has no inference on the people who live on this Island is bogus.
If you are from a state in Europe you are European you may also be french or Spanish or Irish but you are European the same for America the suggestion that you can refer to this island as being part of the British Isles without any inference that the people from here are in some way British is a nonesense

Voipjunkie

mike65 wrote:

I would'nt call them Spanish but I might say they are from Iberia! I would'nt be wrong even if they took offence.

Mike.

That is exactly the point the penisula is Iberia so the people who live there are Iberians whether they are Spanish Portugeuse Catalans etc the use of the term British Isles infers that the people from this Island are British that is where the confusion comes from. Ireland is in Europe so we are Europeans the obvious extension of that is if Ireland is in the British Isles therefore we are British that is why people find the term offensive we are not British. That is where the confusion arises for people like Nancy Reagan and Gorbachev.

Voipjunkie

luckat wrote:

I seem to remember that way back in the 1950s or so geographers were through this, and the international geographers' association decided that 'these islands' would now be called the North Atlantic Isles.

IONA Islands of the North Atlantic is another one I have seen

Navan Junction

corktina wrote:

Heresey to say it......BUT all occupants of British Isles are british.....Occupants of Great Britain are Britains (or British if you like ) Occupants of Ireland are irish...yes even youse Northerners....Occupants of the Republic (and allies) are Irish....

aLL TO DO WITH cAPITALS...

:rolleyes:

As the song goes, 'Oul Britannia loves us still..

As a matter of interest, how many agree with the Fine Gael suggestion of joint sovereignty for the 32 counties?

Although that is off topic a little, I would reckon that the numbers would stack up as they have in relation to the british isles problem.

cast_iron

shltter wrote:

I agree could not give a flying **** what that body of water is called.

So why on earth are you posting here?

I can't see the big issue here. The islands are not officially recognised as "The Brirish Isles" so they have removed the name.
Big Deal. How can this be such a big problem for people?

gurramok

You obviously didnt read shltter's post, no-one lives in the Irish sea and are not offended.
How is it hard not to comprehend that there are 2 big islands, one of which is Britain and another called Ireland which is not a British isle?

corktina

ah ...whats in a name? A Rose by anyother name would smell as sweet......

(I just made that up.....)






(I did.....really...)

(Oh all right I didnt,but 'tis true isn't it?)

Voipjunkie

corktina wrote:

ah ...whats in a name? A Rose by anyother name would smell as sweet......

(I just made that up.....)






(I did.....really...)

(Oh all right I didnt,but 'tis true isn't it?)

Nonsense if it does not matter then why the resistance to the change

Navan Junction

Voipjunkie wrote:

Nonsense if it does not matter then why the resistance to the change

Got it in one.

corktina

Shakespeare? Nonsense?.....oh well, bet you wouldnt say that about Joyce etc...

my comment surely applies BOTH ways, to change and to resistance to
change.....in other words, WHATEVER you call this Island matters not a jot, it will still be Ireland........THAT is what counts isnt it?

didnt think i would need to explain Old Bills sentiment....

Navan Junction

corktina wrote:

Shakespeare? Nonsense?.....oh well, bet you wouldnt say that about Joyce etc...

Hmmm... I thought that this was about geography, not literature.

Can you comprehend why the term might cause offence?

Voipjunkie

corktina wrote:

Shakespeare? Nonsense?.....oh well, bet you wouldnt say that about Joyce etc...

my comment surely applies BOTH ways, to change and to resistance to
change.....in other words, WHATEVER you call this Island matters not a jot, it will still be Ireland........THAT is what counts isnt it?

didnt think i would need to explain Old Bills sentiment....

I would if someone used a quote from joyce to suggest that including Ireland in the term British Isles was Ok.

Of course it will still be ireland that is not in dispute but it is not Britain or British no more than it is not part of the Canary Islands either.

The basic point is that the term British Isles implies that this Island and the people born here are British we are not.
Nonesense about geographical terms not political are just that nonesense can anyone else give any example of a geographical term that is not applicable to some of the people living in that area.
If your are from a country in Europe you are European if you are from in a country in America you are American if you are from a country in Africa you are African if you are from a country in Iberia you are IBerian if you are from a country in Scandinavia you are Scandinavian.
Yet people are trying to insist that you can be from the British Isles without it infering that you are somehow British any one have any other examples of this I cant think of any.
That inference is what most people on this Island find offensive if British people want to use that term to describe the Island of Britain and its islands that is fine as long as they do not include Ireland and its islands in the term what they choose to call themselves is their own business.

murphaph

Voipjunkie wrote:

it is not Britain or British
..
The basic point is that the term British Isles implies that this Island and the people born here are British we are not.
Nonesense about geographical terms not political are just that nonesense can anyone else give any example of a geographical term that is not applicable to some of the people living in that area.

But Northern Ireland is of course British, so does that mean that all the islands and parts of islands belonging to the UK are indeed the 'British Isles' whilst the 26 counties and islands belonging to the RoI are not? Surely your insistance that it is indeed a political term and not a geographical one would imply this to be the case, that the British Isles begins/ends at the border!

Navan Junction

murphaph wrote:

But Northern Ireland is of course British, so does that mean that all the islands and parts of islands belonging to the UK are indeed the 'British Isles' whilst the 26 counties and islands belonging to the RoI are not? Surely your insistance that it is indeed a political term and not a geographical one would imply this to be the case, that the British Isles begins/ends at the border!

Letter to the editor, Irish Times, 6th Oct 2006

Madam,- Newton Emerson says that 20 per cent of the inhabitants of Ireland are British (Newton's Optic, October 5th). He is incorrect. Are they Protestant? Yes. Are they unionist? Yes. Are they loyalist? Yes. They are all of the above but the one thing they are not is British. They are Irish people loyal to the crown.

British people are people from the island of Britain. I suggest Newton should clean his optic, or at least his atlas. - Yours, etc,

DERMOT SWEENEY, Ushers Island, Dublin 8.

Voipjunkie

murphaph wrote:

But Northern Ireland is of course British, so does that mean that all the islands and parts of islands belonging to the UK are indeed the 'British Isles' whilst the 26 counties and islands belonging to the RoI are not? Surely your insistance that it is indeed a political term and not a geographical one would imply this to be the case, that the British Isles begins/ends at the border!

No the 6 counties are on the Island of Ireland they have a large population of descendants of British settlers but that does not make this Island British no more than it does not make large parts of North America or Australia Irish.
The fact that those counties are governed from Britain does not change its location

Metrobest

shltter wrote:

And how many barcelona residents did you question on this subject

For example the formula one grand prix is always refered to as the Catalyuna grand prix and never the spainish grand prix.

But let us imagine that you are right if the catalans won their independence from spain do you think they would be happy to be called spanish or would they as much as possible ensure that people were aware that catalonia was not part of Spain.
That is all that Ireland is doing the term causes confusion because it suggests that Ireland is part of the british political entity the proof of that is for example Nancy Reagans mistaken presumption we were british or Gorbachevs presumption that Elizabeth Windsor was the head of state here.

The term causes confusion and offence so it should be dropped

Opinion pollsters regularly question Catalans about whether they feel Spanish, Catalan, or both; the mood has been hardening in recent years towards exculsively Catalan or Catalan first, Spanish second. No doubt you were aware of that.

That the Barcelona Grand Prix is referred to as the Catalunya grand prix just proves my point that the people of that region do not identify as Spanish. Indeed, during the World Cup, many Catalans went out of their way to support every team but Spain.

Catalans are quite happy that the rest of the world thinks they are Spanish. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They are confident in their own identity.

The ultimate irony is that Ireland, independent now for over 90 years, still maintains a shocking level of insularity, lack of confidence in our identity. It manifests in the bilingual motorway signs, legal documents nobody reads translated as Gaeilge and now, this Orwellian obsession with removing geographical terminology from the english language - the wonderful language which came to us courtesy of Great Britain, and has given us opportunities all over the planet that we could never have otherwise exploited.

We don't know how lucky we are. Without the British input into Ireland, we could still be munching potatoes for breakfast and living in stone cottages. The highest form of cultural enlightenment would be a Peig novel. But the anti-Brits in this forum would probably like that as Ireland would again be "purë"

Navan Junction

Metrobest wrote:

Without the British input into Ireland, we could still be munching potatoes for breakfast and living in stone cottages.

Sir Walter Raleigh introduced the potatoe

Metrobest wrote:

The highest form of cultural enlightenment would be a Peig novel. But the anti-Brits in this forum would probably like that as Ireland would again be "purë"

Well, the very words 'Irish' and 'Ireland' are English words, and the 'Irish' people are a mix of Gaelic, English, Scottish, Dutch, Spanish etc.

The 'Irish' people are pure only in being of multi-racial origin.

It is the term 'British Isles' that is the problem, and to object to what is effectively a subsitute term for 'British Empire' is not xenophobic.

Oh, and my wife is a Scot. She is British (whether she likes it or not:)), but I am not.

corktina

Navan Junction wrote:

Hmmm... I thought that this was about geography, not literature.

Can you comprehend why the term might cause offence?

I can comprehend that the term DOES cause offence, but not why...the British are british because they live in Great Britian...the Irish are irish becuase they live in Ireland....the overall term for these islands for many years has been the British Isles but that does not suggest that this Country BELONGS to Britian....

strassenwolf

Are the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, previously part of "India", kicking up a fuss about still being part of the Indian Subcontinent?

Navan Junction

corktina wrote:

the overall term for these islands for many years has been the British Isles

But it hasn't. All of the maps going back for hundreds of years have referred to Britain and Ireland, or as the London map-makers would have it Great Britain and Ireland.

British Isles has been becoming more used since the likes of Sky entering the market here. The 26 counties doesn't sit easy on their map (political inconvienience) so they use the term 'British Isles' and cry geographic correctitude to justify it..

It's not often I'd go for completely for political correctness, but this is one case that I do. Because the 'British Isles' just ain't PC.

I know now how the poor American natives felt when they were called Indians, and they never even having set foot in India.

nordydan

Having just returned from holidays and witnessed this thread, this shows categorically how easy it is to weed out the traitors in thso country. "But we're all British!" ?????? The same Brits who decimated this country?? Utterly disgusting. For all the attacks on the provos, they didnt do 1% of the harm that John Bull did (aided by the irish collaborators, with whom some on this forum seem to share a similar mindset)

This is an intelligent move by the government. This abhorrent term harps back to colonial days.

"Go on home "British Isles", go on home.
Have you got no ****ing home of your own....."

PS Dont get me started on the MAINLAND!! Mainland ffs. Its a slightly larger island and another country. What does that make the continent, the super-mainland (or uber-mainland)!

Navan Junction

Michael Viney, Irish Times, 25/09/2004

Another Life

This month's proposition, from a scientist at the University of Ulster (UU), that there was never a land bridge between Ireland and Britain, revives a frustrating controversy.


If there never was such a land bridge, how did plants and animals arrive in Ireland in such an ecologically orderly way? Biologists and geologists have found their ideas on this totally at odds. One or more land bridges across the Irish Sea have seemed vital to explain the onward distribution of species from Europe via Britain - but seabed geology is against it. The Irish Sea floor has a great trough 100m deep running up the centre, shallowing only at the northern end. At an important conference on post-glacial colonization in 1983, UCC geographer Robert Devoy thought the most that might be granted was a "low, soggy, possibly shifting and partially discontinuous linkage" between the Scottish islands and Malin Head in Donegal.

This was similar to the scenario now on offer from Dr Andrew Cooper of UU Coleraine's Centre for Coastal and Marine Research, who has been doing geophysical research with colleagues from the University of Maine.

The team's seismic work on the strata of North Channel sediments seems to show that sea level never dropped far enough to allow a dry and durable land bridge to emerge. Globally, the sea fell by 130 metres as water was locked up in glaciers, but so heavy was the weight of ice on Scotland and Ireland, says Dr Cooper, that the fall in the channel was no more than about 30 metres. There might have been enough soggy, temporary islands to help the giant Irish "elk" make the crossing, holding up its antlers as it swam.

Until his death in 1997, the leading champion of a land bridge was Frank Mitchell, distinguished naturalist and Professor of Quaternary [Ice Age\] Studies in Trinity College Dublin. In successive editions of his masterly and popular Reading the Irish Landscape, he argued for an orderly migration of oakwoods, complete with forest animals "rather than to imagine the occasional acorn floating across the sea or being carried by a pigeon across the North Channel, while groups of pigs and deer were swimming across the tidal channels." His early choice for the location of the bridge was on a line from Wales to Wicklow, where a ridge runs east to west, across the central trough, south of the Isle of Man. But even allowing for erosion, the ridge seems to lie too deep ever to have been exposed in the post-glacial period.

Suggestions of moraine ridges of rocks across the Irish Sea, left behind by the glaciers and subsequently washed away, seemed to allow insufficient time for soil to form and trees to grow.

Frank Mitchell's convictions were finally encouraged, however, by the work of Robin Wingfield for the British Geological Society. In his theory, the slow northward retreat of the ice was followed at its boundary by a migrating "forebulge" as the earth's crust rebounded from the weight of the ice cap. This could have provided a land bridge to south-west Ireland around 11,000 years ago, leading Mitchell to picture "organised woods advancing up a dry coastal strip . . . along the shore of the Atlantic, and later a very remarkable type of automatic trackway across the Irish Sea." Recent work by a namesake, Trinity botanist Fraser Mitchell, on the northward migration of trees, suggests a direct route from Spain, rather than westwards from Britain. This and the timing (pine arrived in the south-west of Ireland 9,500 years ago) seem quite compatible with the creeping shift of the "forebulge".

Without a bridge of some sort, the real challenges for explanation are ecological: Ireland would have had to be "restocked" from an exposed (and now submerged) coastal margin with a wintry climate and very limited surviving species. In the traditional model of glaciation, the last big freeze left a margin of tundra in parts of Munster and the north-west. But new studies in the 1990s proposed three big ice domes that left no room for life on the island until the major withdrawal of ice began around 13,000 years ago.

Precisely how the giant deer reached us may turn out to be far less important than the fact that the post-glacial arrival of many lesser creatures - snails, for example - followed exactly the same sequence of species in Leinster, needing just the same changes in vegetation, as in western Britain. A passive and random arrival seems impossible.

Dr Cooper and his American colleagues not only worked with seismic profiling but took sediment cores last summer from Belfast Lough and along the northern coast of Antrim. They are now hoping to find peat or pollens to tell more about the vegetation history of the island's lost shoreline.

© The Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/weekend/2004/0925/2608620293WK25VINEY.html

strassenwolf

Navan Junction wrote:

I know now how the poor American natives felt when they were called Indians, and they never even having set foot in India.

Probably the least of the problems faced by the Injuns was what the invading Europeans were calling them:D Theft of land, wholesale wiping out of tribes, most probably rape as well, the decline of roaming land for Buffalo, etc., would all have been much more pressing concerns.

The issue of nomenclature would have been right down the list of grievances.

In any case, I'm sure they continued to call themselves Sioux, Cherokee, Navajo or whatever, while all these other problems were being faced.

Navan Junction

strassenwolf wrote:

Theft of land, wholesale wiping out of tribes, most probably rape as well, the decline of roaming land for Buffalo, etc., would all have been much more pressing concerns.

Do you know your Irish history?