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

Alun

Navan Junction wrote:

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.

There are examples of maps dating back to the 16th century that refer to the British Isles, or Britannicarum Insularum. See http://www.sanderusmaps.com/antique-maps/europe/british-isles_13912.cfm?site=ok., so that's patently not true.

Plus the whole "Great Britain" thing has been done to death here many times ... nothing to do with "look how great we are" at all.

Navan Junction

Alun wrote:

There are examples of maps dating back to the 16th century that refer to the British Isles, or Britannicarum Insularum.

Yes, but what proportion? Was the common term not 'Great Britain & Ireland'.
Or the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.

Can I also make the not unimportant point that this was an Gaelic speaking island with an English invader over-class that spoke English at that point.

Gaelic was the vernacular of this island right up to the 19th century, and hey we definately didn't use the words 'British Isles' then.

Britain is a foreign land no matter what way you look at it. There is a shared language now, but that is a whited sepulchre hiding the rotten history of hundreds of years of invasion (for you corktina:) ).

To say that the use of the English language either makes us the same nation or in some way British is false. Are the Belgians French?

Irish people in the main do not use the term 'British Isles' or 'the mainland'. Why do you want us to use it?

And realistically, were the Irish people in any position to object to anything the British called us for most of our history?

murphaph

Voipjunkie wrote:

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

Hold on a second partner, you're crying foul that the expression British Isles is actually a political term and not a geographical one. Northern Ireland is politially British, even if it is not geographicaly so. So, I say again, does that mean the British Isles encompasses all of the UK parts of These Islands and excludes all the territory of the RoI? Or are you denying that Northern Ireland is politically quite British?

Navan Junction

murphaph wrote:

Or are you denying that Northern Ireland is politically quite British?

I suppose 10,000 troops has something to with that. Large garrisons would be politically 'quite British'..

Funny stat, but there are more British troops in the north than in Iraq...

That doen't mean that it is british though, no more than Iraq is..

PS - Has anyone noticed the geographical study report from the Times which I posted above?

A Dub in Glasgo

(Great) Britain makes up 73% of the BI
Ireland makes up 26.8% of the BI
The Isle of Mann makes up 0.2% of the BI

The area should be called 'The British & Irish Isles' rather than just 'The British Isles'

Navan Junction

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The area should be called 'The British & Irish Isles' rather than just 'The British Isles'

Sounds sensible. Especially since all of the islands other than Britain and Ireland belong to one or the other.

Bet you it'll be shot down.

murphaph

Navan Junction wrote:

I suppose 10,000 troops has something to with that. Large garrisons would be politically 'quite British'..

Funny stat, but there are more British troops in the north than in Iraq...

That doen't mean that it is british though, no more than Iraq is..

PS - Has anyone noticed the geographical study report from the Times which I posted above?

Are you attempting to imply that Northern Ireland is only 'british' because it is militarily occupied and not because a majority of civilians wish it to remain part of the UK?

Comparing a region of the UK in which most of the people wish it to remain so with an occupied country in which a majority of the people do not wish it so is clearly ridiculous and flies in the face of what democracy actually is.

So, I say again, Northern Ireland is politically British, so to those insisting that the term British Isles is political, would you accept that it at least includes all the territory of the UK? You can't have it both ways, you can't insist it's a political ter yet deny that it includes Northern Ireland (unless you deny that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom).

If you deny that Northern Ireland is indeed a part of the UK, an internationally recognised status (including recognition by our own RoI), then it seems quite pointless to debate anything involving politics with you.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

Are you attempting to imply that Northern Ireland is only 'british' because it is militarily occupied and not because a majority of civilians wish it to remain part of the UK?

Comparing a region of the UK in which most of the people wish it to remain so with an occupied country in which a majority of the people do not wish it so is clearly ridiculous and flies in the face of what democracy actually is.

So, I say again, Northern Ireland is politically British, so to those insisting that the term British Isles is political, would you accept that it at least includes all the territory of the UK? You can't have it both ways, you can't insist it's a political ter yet deny that it includes Northern Ireland (unless you deny that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom).

If you deny that Northern Ireland is indeed a part of the UK, an internationally recognised status (including recognition by our own RoI), then it seems quite pointless to debate anything involving politics with you.

Who, on here, is insisting on using it as a political expression? My beef with it is the fact that people do use it as a political expression. The people using it are mainly foreigners who have not informed themselves correctly or people who want to make the point the this part of the world is called 'The Brirish Isles'. I know of no Irish person who refers to these islands as 'The British Isles' [other than unionists].

Why do you object to using 'The British & Irish Isles'?

Navan Junction

murphaph wrote:

If you deny that Northern Ireland is indeed a part of the UK, an internationally recognised status (including recognition by our own RoI), then it seems quite pointless to debate anything involving politics with you.

Stating the reality that such a land mass as that in the north requires 10,000 troops is normal is not correct. There is no point in pretending that the north-east of this country has been normal since it's foundation.

Either way, it is 'politically british' in that it is britished governed. But that doesn't mean that is accepted by 100% of the population, nor does it make it's people british.

And it definately doesn't make it a british isle, no more than the Falkland's are.

Anyway, I thought you said it wasn't a political issue?:)

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why do you object to using 'The British & Irish Isles'?

I don't actually. I think it's ok. I also think the current term is ok.

murphaph

Navan Junction wrote:

Stating the reality that such a land mass as that in the north requires 10,000 troops is normal is not correct.

Of course it's not normal and I'd be obliged if you could point out where I said it was. However, Northern Ireland is steadily demilitarising (I'm sure you saw the three home service battalions of the RIR being presented the distinguished service medal by the Queen the other day, just before their disbandment) and as such is normalising.

Navan Junction wrote:

There is no point in pretending that the north-east of this country has been normal since it's foundation.

It was as normal as this side of the border for many years!

Navan Junction wrote:

Either way, it is 'politically british' in that it is britished governed.

Correct but more than that-it is british because the adjective 'british' means pertaining to the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part.

Navan Junction wrote:

But that doesn't mean that is accepted by 100% of the population

Is any country's government or governance fully accepted by 100% of it's people?

Navan Junction wrote:

nor does it make it's people british.

But seeing as the word 'British' means 'of the UK' as well as 'of the island of Britain' (are people from Holyhead not still british, even though they don't live on the island of Britain?) then it does make them british, whether they like it or not.

Navan Junction wrote:

And it definately doesn't make it a british isle, no more than the Falkland's are.

I makes Northern Ireland british, that much is accepted by the international community and our own country.

Navan Junction wrote:

Anyway, I thought you said it wasn't a political issue?:)

It isn't, that's the point-many here are claiming it's not a geographical term but rather a political one. If it's a politcal term then surely the bit of the island that is british is part of the british isles!

shltter

Metrobest wrote:

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.

Iam well aware of how Catalans feel about their identity

What I want to know is how you know this

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.

How many Catalans have you spoken to that have told you this because it is not my experience with Catalans I have met they do not like to be identified as Spanish in fact it annoys them greatly

Metrobest wrote:

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"

Is this a troll attempt or are you ****ing serious

We were eating potatoes and living stone Cottages because of the Brits the Industrial revolution passed this country by because of the brits and if we had not managed to kick them out of the 26 counties when we did this place would be a basket case just like the North.

We have nothing to thank Britain for unless you would like to thank them for Murder Oppression Violence emigration a Famine

How far this state has come in the relatively short time since Independence is a testament to how poorly it was run before that

Navan Junction

murphaph wrote:

the adjective 'british' means pertaining to the United Kingdom

Ah, here...! No it doesn't!

murphaph wrote:

Is any country's government or governance fully accepted by 100% of it's people?

No. But neither would you get shot an any other EU country for demanding civil rights or housing.. Look, I'll quite whilst I'm behind... But Ireland is not a british isle

murphaph

shltter wrote:

the Industrial revolution passed this country by because of the brits

Actually it passed us by for a number of reasons, not least of which were the almost complete lack of iron ore and coal, the basic materials for the industrial revolutions right across Europe. Many parts of Europe missed out on the industrial revolution for similar reasons, particularly southern Europe, contrast that to anywhere with coal and iron ore reserves-these regions generally boomed.

LordSutch

Sorry to say, but this thread is already running as the "British isles & Ireland" thread!!!

There are already 23 pages there on this topic!

Most of the posters are there .........................>

thebman

murphaph wrote:

Actually it passed us by for a number of reasons, not least of which were the almost complete lack of iron ore and coal, the basic materials for the industrial revolutions right across Europe. Many parts of Europe missed out on the industrial revolution for similar reasons, particularly southern Europe, contrast that to anywhere with coal and iron ore reserves-these regions generally boomed.

While you at least partly right, the guy was just venting over the trolling.

Don't feed the troll.

murphaph

Navan Junction wrote:

Ah, here...! [british doesn't mean 'pertaining to the United Kingdom'!]

That's patently ridiculous. Are you claiming that british means pertaining to the island of Britain alone? So you really are stating that someone from Anglesey, Isle of Wight or Shetland is not in fact british?

Navan Junction wrote:

No. But neither would you get shot an any other EU country for demanding civil rights or housing.. Look, I'll quite whilst I'm behind... But Ireland is not a british isle

Part of this island is of course british in a political context, in geographical circles the entire island is british insofar as it is one of the British Isles.

JaysusMacfeck

murphaph wrote:

in geographical circles the entire island is british insofar as it is one of the British Isles.

So, geographically the Republic of Ireland is British? The Aran Islands are geographically British islands? The River Liffey is geographically a British river? My back garden is geographically British soil?

I am wrong do disagree here?

Victor

What about Indonesia? You don't see East Timor or Papua New Guinea throwing a wobbler when someone sprals "I n d o n e s i a" accross the archipelego.

Navan Junction wrote:

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.

But they carry British passports.

Navan Junction

murphaph wrote:

That's patently ridiculous. Are you claiming that british means pertaining to the island of Britain alone? So you really are stating that someone from Anglesey, Isle of Wight or Shetland is not in fact british?

I don't know tbh. I don't think the Irish have that british tendency to catagorise others for political (or geographic) expediency..

Whatever the people of Anglesey want to call themselves is fine by me.

We have a a majority on this island (democracy) that say they aren't british politically, and 100 metre trench to say we aren't british geographically.

Anyway, I give up. Where can I sign up to become a british subject? (Mind you I've always been a british subject geographically (well subject to british geography anyhow) so maybe the transition shouldn't be too hard.

Navan Junction

Victor wrote:

But they carry British passports.

So do Falkland Islanders, and the people of the Costa del Sol.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

That's patently ridiculous. Are you claiming that british means pertaining to the island of Britain alone? So you really are stating that someone from Anglesey, Isle of Wight or Shetland is not in fact british?

Those 3 are part of (Great) Britain therefore they are British.

NI is not part of (Great) Britain. It is part of the UK of GB & NI.

RedPlanet

Victor wrote:

What about Indonesia? You don't see East Timor or Papua New Guinea throwing a wobbler when someone sprals "I n d o n e s i a" accross the archipelego. But they carry British passports.

In fairness we don't hear much East Timorese views on anything.
They, i'm pretty sure, have other things occupying their idle time.
But we cannot rule out that in near future they do not have issues with it.

spacetweek

murphaph wrote:

It isn't, that's the point-many here are claiming it's not a geographical term but rather a political one. If it's a politcal term then surely the bit of the island that is british is part of the british isles!

That's a good point - the only good one you've made so far. There are two issues here that people are talking about:

- The term "British" means either "from the island of Britain" (geographical) or "resident of the UK or one of its territories" (political).The former definition is the one most Irish people use as it specifically excludes Ireland; the latter is the one used generally and explains anomalies such as Gibraltarians describing themselves as British. The solution to this problem is for a new adjective "United Kingdomer" to be introduced which refers to people who live in the UK or its territories. Chances of this happening: slim.

- The British Isles, a geographical term, is considered a contentious term by Irish people because it seems to include Ireland as a "British" island. This appears to be unacceptable to most Irish people, at least anecdotally. This can be easily sidestepped by referring to the group as "Ireland and Britain".

One thing I am worried about is that the change that Folens are making appears to have been as a result of one complaint - one single complaint. I don't think the textbook for thousands of primary school kids should be changed at the whim of some housewife calling from her kitchen sink to rant about history. This should have been discussed at length by the DoE.

Navan Junction

spacetweek wrote:

This should have been discussed at length by the DoE.

It is a term rejected by the Irish government - why would the DoE discuss it at length?

LordSutch

As a former geoghrayhy student, I am curious to know what Folens, Dermot Ahearn, & the Patriotic ranting Parent will replace the title 'British Isles' with? when refering to this Archipelago of 6000 'approx' islands/ shelf.

This is a serious question ~ and even a cursery glance inside the current Folens Atlas begs the question "what will the alternative title be" in 2007?

Bearing in mind that from Jan/2007 our students will be taught that the name of this Archipelago is what? ........... While students in the North, Britain, & across the globe will still open their Atlas & witness the 'British Isles' alive & well in the physical pages. (only Folens.ie is wiping the British Isles off the Globe)!

So what will be the new title be for the offending 31 pages?

Britain & Ireland? (missing out other soveign territories).
UK & Ireland? (a political term only).
British & Irish Isles? (too long winded & not recognised).

A Dub in Glasgo

ArthurF wrote:

As a former geoghrayhy student, I am curious to know what Folens, Dermot Ahearn, & the Patriotic ranting Parent will replace the title 'British Isles' with? when refering to this Archipelago of 6000 'approx' islands/ shelf.

This is a serious question ~ and even a cursery glance inside the current Folens Atlas begs the question "what will the alternative title be" in 2007?

Bearing in mind that from Jan/2007 our students will be taught that the name of this Archipelago is what? ........... While students in the North, Britain, & across the globe will still open their Atlas & witness the 'British Isles' alive & well in the physical pages. (only Folens.ie is wiping the British Isles off the Globe)!

So what will be the new title be for the offending 31 pages?

Britain & Ireland? (missing out other soveign territories).
UK & Ireland? (a political term only).
British & Irish Isles? (too long winded & not recognised).

As a former geography student, I am curious as to the reason you state that adding '& Irish' into the term is 'too long winded'?

Navan Junction

ArthurF wrote:

British & Irish Isles? (too long winded & not recognised).

But completely accurate.

And just a quick point re the Irish being descendents of ancient britons. Anyone know the difference between Welsh and Gaelic? Or P and Q celtic?

LordSutch

British & Irish isles might well be the answer? but there are also several other variations on this theme that might also be suitable.

I happen to think that the powers that be (on the plant cartography) might not want to extend the title to 'the British & Irish isles' although I might be wrong?

Anyway, there are currently no plans to have the term changed on an international basis, it really is a parochial hang up by some politically sensitive Irish people who dislike the name of a Geographical archipelago on the World globe.

(The offending term only appears in the physical pages of Folens Atlas) ............. and not in the political pages!

strassenwolf

Navan Junction wrote:

Do you know your Irish history?

I know a considerable amount about it.

The salient point about Irish history, as far as most of the rest of the world is concerned, is that it was a downtrodden province of Britain for most of the last millenium. And, as far as much of the rest of the world is concerned, the two islands are part of the one entity. People in Ireland and Britain know that that is not the case, but large parts of the rest of the world are not all that sure, to the extent that they really care one way or the other.

We can go along with all this politically correct stuff, and it is correct, of using "British and Irish Isles" or whatever. The rest of the world will not pay any attention. The New Zealanders, South Africans and Australians do not, in the main, refer to the "British and Irish Lions" rugby team, though their newspapers probably do. To the average punter in those countries, that rugby team is the "British Lions". It's just easier, and everybody knows who they're referring to.

We saw this only a few weeks ago when the Ryder Cup was in Ireland. The flag used to represent Europe was the flag of the European Union. A flag whose design was established by the officials of the EU, not by officials of all the countries which are in what is conventionally termed "Europe".

So what happens when a decent Swiss golfer comes along, or a decent Norwegian (of which there are many). Will it then be the US against Europe and Switzerland, or the US against Europe and Norway? How many flags will we see on the "European" side? Will we have two or three, i.e., the EU flag and the Swiss and/or Norwegian flag?

My guess is that the EU flag alone will be used in such a scenario. It's not meant to imply that Norway or Switzerland are part of the EU, it's just easier for all concerned. In the same way that "The British Isles" is not meant to mean that everything therein belongs to Britain. It is just an easier, catchier phrase for the rest of the world to get a handle on.

Anybody in the rest of the world who gives a damn will know the correct territorial/political situation in "The British Isles".