"Irish Republic" and the BBC - What is their problem?

IIMII

Yeah, it gets my goat up when you meet Brits on holiday and the ask if I am Southern or Northern Irish. My response that I am Irish never satisfies them

Fratton Fred

IIMII wrote: »

Yeah, it gets my goat up when you meet Brits on holiday and the ask if I am Southern or Northern Irish. My response that I am Irish never satisfies them

Gets my goat when I meet Irish people who don't know the difference between England and Britain and trust me, there are a hell of a lot.

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Gets my goat when I meet Irish people who don't know the difference between England and Britain and trust me, there are a hell of a lot.

Well, funnily enough I actually prefer it when people introduce themselves as English rather than British. Somebody says they are English, you take it as face value, no probs. Somebody says they are British, you are left wondering if they are making a point.

Dudess

Why refer to these English people as "the Brits" so?

mike65

b12mearse wrote: »

There Brits- do you need an explanation?

Clearly not a fan of the Queens English.

IIMII

IIMII wrote: »

Well, funnily enough I actually prefer it when people introduce themselves as English rather than British. Somebody says they are English, you take it as face value, no probs. Somebody says they are British, you are left wondering if they are making a point.

I think you've hit a nail on the head there!

I consider myself English, and will always say that when asked as that is where I lived for most of my life (Irish ancestors), British sounds a bit pretentious (to Irish ears).

I don't like being called "a Brit" by anyone Irish as I'm never sure if its an insult or not.

Fratton Fred

IIMII wrote: »

Well, funnily enough I actually prefer it when people introduce themselves as English rather than British. Somebody says they are English, you take it as face value, no probs. Somebody says they are British, you are left wondering if they are making a point.

Tbh, outside of ireland, I don't know many people who do call themselves british, I certainly wouldn't.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you've hit a nail on the head there!

I consider myself English, and will always say that when asked as that is where I lived for most of my life (Irish ancestors), British sounds a bit pretentious (to Irish ears).

I don't like being called "a Brit" by anyone Irish as I'm never sure if its an insult or not.

same here.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Why refer to these English people as "the Brits" so?

Probably too lazy to find out whether they consider themselves firstly British or English, Welsh or scottish, almost ALL Scots and Welsh consider themslves Scottish or Welsh, but, many English people see themselves as British rather than English.

English Identity has largly been suppressed in recent years for being quaint, old fashioned & dispised by many in England unfortunately.

mike65

Thats the PC multi cultural effect. You can be proud to be anything in England other than English. (not that pride is worth a damn as a rule, accident of birth and all that).

IIMII

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't like being called "a Brit" by anyone Irish as I'm never sure if its an insult or not.

It is an insult, thought it may be a light hearted insult.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Tbh, outside of ireland, I don't know many people who do call themselves british, I certainly wouldn't.

Yeah, I can understand why from an English political point of view it might suit to use the term British, but to be honest if I was English I wouldn't be that enamoured to be called anything other than English. Mind you if I was English, I'd want a republic instead of a monarchy - can't get my head around the idea of being born into the job of being head of state. I like the idea of the head of a country being first citizen amongst equals.

Come to think of it many black English people seem to favour the term British over English - is English seen as an ethnic term there now?

Hagar

Just to set your minds at rest, being referred to as English or British is fine and dandy. Being referred to as a Brit is an insult.

CF any number of Sun headlines "Brits in Barca Bargy", "Brits show Huns in Munich", fill in the rest yourselves... :D

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now if that is not the most ahistorical piece of nationalistic drivel I have ever read on Boards.ie I don't know what is.

That you even think that there was some linguistic nation covering Ireland and Britain over 2000 years ago is an astonishing case of embracing myths of British nationalism, such as propagated by John Dee, the man who is recorded as being the first user of the term "British Isles" in the English language. Oh, and that use was not "around 300 BC" but rather in 1577. To be precise. If you know of it being used before that date you should contact the Oxford English Dictionary forthwith.

How ironic that for all your anti-nationalist rhetoric you are so quick to embrace the nationalist myths, like linguistic unity thousands of years ago, of the "British Isles" nationalists.

Oh, as for your rather vacuous implied belief that language is stagnant and meanings don't change, the swastika was a symbol of peace in Hindu culture thousands of years ago. Lets all fly the swastika now, shall we?

WTF we all on both islands arrived in the end of the last ice age from the Basque region. We hit the other island first and drifed over this way. Google "Ivernic" or P-Celtic if you don't believe we had a Brythonic tounge. Google anything I've written about in fact and if you can find anything to the contrary come back and say so. Otherwise you should STFU. The John Dee fella you reference never did what you claim, "British Empire" was the phrase he coined but I suppose you didn't get past the word British without seeing red and frothing at the mouth so your confusion is entirely understandable.

As for you referencing the swastika I lol'd hard, your logic is beyond priceless. Once upon a time there was just one people, one culture, one language and all others have come from them. Deal with it.

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

Unbelievable amount of rubbish. You could tell the difference between tribes in Ireland 500 years ago but it seems when we were all in this glorious "British Isles" thousands of years ago we were all the same.

I said Prettanic, well not me but the Greek fella. And the Fenians surely thought we were all in the same boat, and we are to this day, apart from you yourselfs alone :rolleyes:

Lookat!

"We appeal to the Highest Tribunal for evidence of the justness of our cause. History bears testimony to the integrity of our sufferings, and we declare, in the face of our brethren, that we intend no war against the people of England—our war is against the aristocratic locusts, whether English or Irish, who have eaten the verdure of our fields—against the aristocratic leeches who drain alike our fields and theirs.

Republicans of the entire world, our cause is your cause. Our enemy is your enemy. Let your hearts be with us. As for you, workmen of England, it is not only your hearts we wish, but your arms.

Remember the starvation and degradation brought to your firesides by the oppression of labour. Remember the past, look well to the future, and avenge yourselves by giving liberty to your children in the coming struggle for human liberty.

Herewith we proclaim the Irish Republic"

I'm sick of the plastic Republicans on this island so I am.

thegen

stovelid wrote: »

This.



I doubt that most of the BBC staff give a sh*t about LondonDerry/Derry/Doire or whatever. The official name is LondonDerry (no matter how palatable or unpalatable that is) and they are the state broadcaster.

Yet again, the default Irish mode of forensically examining the most humdrum and unintentional of British utterances for traces of prejudice.

Known to most up North as stroke city

IIMII

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I'm sick of the plastic Republicans on this island so I am.

You mean the majority of the population? If you don't like us, why are you here?

Fratton Fred

thegen wrote: »

Known to most up North as stroke city

Like the two nuns who saw a flasher?

One had a stroke, the other couldn't reach!

mike65

Why are internet republicans so stoopid?

IIMII

mike65 wrote: »

Clearly not a fan of the Queens English.

Clearly not a fan of the Queen's English.

Not that I am one to talk with my typos

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

O'Coonassa

IIMII wrote: »

You mean the majority of the population? If you don't like us, why are you here?

No I mean the miniscule minority who froth about "Brits" like it wasn't just a label that the rich and powerful in four nations chose for us all.

IIMII

Iolar wrote: »

must be the water

Or the slow dial up connections

O'Coonassa

mike65 wrote: »

Why are internet republicans so stoopid?

Irish Catholic Nationalist != Republican.

But they need telling

seanybiker

Should just rename the place to Seanyland and we all live peacefully. Mainly peacefully cos as leader I demand everyone to get pissed 5 times a week.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

mike65

IIMII wrote: »

Clearly not a fan of the Queen's English.

Not that I am one to talk with my typos

No I was talking about Queens English wiseguy!

IIMII

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Irish Catholic Nationalist != Republican.

But they need telling

And Wolfe Tone, Emmet, Casement.....?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

IIMII

No, not Jesus. Correct answer is Micheál Mac Líammóir

O'Coonassa

IIMII wrote: »

And Wolfe Tone, Emmet, Casement.....?

All good libertarian Republicans, just like Republicans should be, why you ask?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

kowloon

Beanstalk wrote: »

They took our Graham too! :pac:

http://bit.ly/13jqq6

We still owe them for that one .

IIMII

O'Coonassa wrote: »

All good libertarian Republicans, just like Republicans should be, why you ask?

They just didn't fit your equation above.

Iolar wrote: »

any relation to Pam "o" Hand?

A very close relation, in a manner of speaking

O'Coonassa

IIMII wrote: »

They just didn't fit your equation above.

The "!=" in the equation means does not equal.

aDeener

j1smithy wrote: »

A little bit of history on the subject. As far as I know, there was a long running dispute between our two nations for many years. Ireland used to refer to the UK as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, rather than its correct name of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, While The UK government used to call Ireland, the Irish republic. This nonsense was finally sorted out in the Good Friday agreement and since then both nations refer to each other as they would like to be called.

The president when accepting accreditation of foreign ambassidors will accept only accept letters that are titled to the president of eire, president of Ireland, president of the republic of ireland but will refuse accreditation addressed to the president of the irish republic.

I don't think the BBC are out to offend us tbh. It does reflect badly on them though that they haven't updated their out of date style guide or are inconsistencies within it. However I'm not so upset about it that it prevents me reading their excellent news service.

bringing the year that was 1966, what feels like, into almost every news bulletin hardly constitutes excellence :pac: great year and all that it was for football! :rolleyes::D

mike65

Eh?

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

Eh?

The Beeb were reporting the footie to the English viewers, and the foreigners are critisizing it for being nationalistic :rolleyes:

mike65

Ah but 1966 on every news bulletin - sounds like 1984!

Richard

j1smithy wrote: »

A little bit of history on the subject. As far as I know, there was a long running dispute between our two nations for many years. Ireland used to refer to the UK as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, rather than its correct name of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

If you look at the (post-independence) Irish statute book, they seem to get the official name right. Ther are also several mentions of "Londonderry".

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Otherwise you should STFU. The John Dee fella you reference never did what you claim, "British Empire" was the phrase he coined but I suppose you didn't get past the word British without seeing red and frothing at the mouth so your confusion is entirely understandable.

Indeed. There is just the sort of intemperate and badly researched comment which sadly appears to mark your rather nationalist "anti-nationalist posts. John Dee is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first person known to have used the term "British Isles". You could have checked this yourself before commenting. You didn't. That says enough about your approach to historical fact.


Here is the full entry for the etymology of the term "British Isles" in the English language:

[< BRITISH adj. + the plural of ISLE n. Compare classical Latin Britannicae insulae, plural (rare); compare also (denoting Great Britain only) classical Latin Britannia insula, Old English Breotone ealond (10th cent.), Welsh ynys Prydain (see BRITAIN n.2).]

A group of islands, including Britain, Ireland (Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), the Isle of Man, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel Islands, lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, from which they are separated by the North Sea and the English Channel. Chiefly with the.
The term is generally regarded as a geographical or territorial description, rather than as one which designates a political entity. The term is deprecated by some speakers in the Republic of Ireland.

1577 J. DEE Arte Navigation 65 The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner. 1621 P. HEYLYN Microcosmus 243 (heading) The Brittish Isles. 1651 T. JENNER Londons Blame 13 This State is now almost absolute Commander of all the Brittish Isles, and hath also enlarged their Dominions over a great part of the Western Indies. 1710 L. MILBOURNE Moderate Cabal 53 Weak James..was perswaded that with Ease he might I' th' British Isles, restore the Papal Right. 1792 A. YOUNG Trav. France II. 343 A territory, naturally so inconsiderable as the British isles, on comparison with France. 1830 Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 3 387 The red grouse..is peculiar to the British Isles. 1888 A. J. JUKES-BROWNE Building of Brit. Isles 1 There have been many different arrangements of land and sea over the area where the British Isles now stand. 1960 C. DAY LEWIS Buried Day ii. 32 He was for ever buying, selling or exchanging books, many of them worthless, with correspondents all over the British Isles. 1999 Guardian 30 Jan. I. 12/4 Drawing on Arthurian history, the report suggests the name ‘Pretanic’, a Greek term preceding both Celtic and Anglo-Saxon for our original, heterogenous ancestors, as a neutral new name for all inhabitants of the British Isles.

Now please stop persecuting us with your ridiculous ahistorical assertions about Irish history straight from "British Isles" school of eurosceptic nationalist myths. All in a vain attempt to separate Britain from the rest of Europe. How very nationalist and separatist of you. The irony.

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

As for you referencing the swastika I lol'd hard, your logic is beyond priceless. Once upon a time there was just one people, one culture, one language and all others have come from them. Deal with it.

Yes, which all appears to have been British.... Well done!

The "British Isles" - the earliest nation-state in world history, it seems.

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I said Prettanic, well not me but the Greek fella. And the Fenians surely thought we were all in the same boat, and we are to this day, apart from you yourselfs alone :rolleyes:

Lookat!

"We appeal to the Highest Tribunal for evidence of the justness of our cause. History bears testimony to the integrity of our sufferings, and we declare, in the face of our brethren, that we intend no war against the people of England—our war is against the aristocratic locusts, whether English or Irish, who have eaten the verdure of our fields—against the aristocratic leeches who drain alike our fields and theirs.

Republicans of the entire world, our cause is your cause. Our enemy is your enemy. Let your hearts be with us. As for you, workmen of England, it is not only your hearts we wish, but your arms.

Remember the starvation and degradation brought to your firesides by the oppression of labour. Remember the past, look well to the future, and avenge yourselves by giving liberty to your children in the coming struggle for human liberty.

Herewith we proclaim the Irish Republic"

I'm sick of the plastic Republicans on this island so I am.

Your anti-Irish rants (although you'd like to intellectualise it by saying they are merely anti-nationalist you are giving yourself too much credit) really are not a substitute for an inadequate education about history.

I don't have to "google" anything about this subject. You are simply using ideas about the ancient Britons, accepting them as historical fact, and then telling the Irish over 2000 years later that they are really British after all. You are also not analysing your sources, their agendas and the contexts within which they wrote.

Well done, Dr O Coonassa, the Marc Bloch of our generation of historians.


PS: Actually you did say it.

irishgrover

Rebelheart wrote: »

Your anti-Irish rants (although you'd like to intellectualise it by saying they are merely anti-nationalist you are giving yourself too much credit) really are not a substitute for an inadequate education about history.

I don't have to "google" anything about this subject. You are simply using ideas about the ancient Britons, accepting them as historical fact, and then telling the Irish over 2000 years later that they are really British after all. You are also not analysing your sources, their agendas and the contexts within which they wrote.

Well done, Dr O Coonassa, the Marc Bloch of our generation of historians.


PS: Actually you did say it.

holy ****, some people really go out of their way to take offense.....

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

Indeed. There is just the sort of intemperate and badly researched comment which sadly appears to mark your rather nationalist "anti-nationalist posts. John Dee is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first person known to have used the term "British Isles". You could have checked this yourself before commenting. You didn't. That says enough about your approach to historical fact.

Here is the full entry for the etymology of the term "British Isles" in the English language:

lol very good homework 8/10, but I know that the fact is Ortelius the Flemish mapmaker beat him to it in 1570. Dee was however the first person to coin the term British Empire. But lest we forget, this wasn't even the issue at at all until you got all tetchy and made it one.

What we were discussing, before you hopped in all hot and bothered, was the etymology of the word Briton ie: your bugbears the "Brits". As demonstrated it all goes back to the Greeks and was applied to the people of both islands. For some reason you're having trouble with the fact that before there was even any Ireland or England we were all Πρεττανοι ie: 'Brits' ya Brit :P

Rebelheart wrote: »

Now please stop persecuting us with your ridiculous ahistorical assertions about Irish history straight from "British Isles" school of eurosceptic nationalist myths. All in a vain attempt to separate Britain from the rest of Europe. How very nationalist and separatist of you. The irony.

Lmao you're the one who can't escape from thinking of the world in terms of petty nationalisms, no use accusing me when it's your imagination that's running riot on you. All I did was point out solid fact about what the Greeks called us and these islands and hence where the Roman usage of 'Britons' came from.

O'Coonassa

irishgrover wrote: »

holy ****, some people really go out of their way to take offense.....

They've been like this since they first got going around 1905 <snortle>

I think they feel guilty for the fact we weren't there to help Emmet, Young Ireland or the Fenians and of course for our part in the Evil Empire we helped to build. All their ultra-separatist Brit bashing nonsense is just a childish over-compensation to hide the fact IMO.

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

then telling the Irish over 2000 years later that they are really British after all.

No you're imagining that, British and Irish are just made up labels but they're only really real in your head, not mine. Everybody on the planet's just a breed of African ape in my book.

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

lol very good homework 8/10, but I know that the fact is Ortelius the Flemish mapmaker beat him to it in 1570. Dee was however the first person to coin the term British Empire. But lest we forget, this wasn't even the issue at at all until you got all tetchy and made it one.

"The fact is" ? You really are a woeful little charlatan. Can you show us Ortelius's map where he uses the English term "British Isles" in 1570, i.e. before John Dee in 1577? How very advanced of a Flemish mapmaker to be using a relatively minor European language like English in 1570 on his maps when everybody else was writing in Latin (or French). Maybe you should tell the Oxford English Dictionary this "fact".

So much for yet another O'Coonassa historical "fact". Your apology is accepted.

Rebelheart

O'Coonassa wrote: »

No you're imagining that, British and Irish are just made up labels but they're only really real in your head, not mine. Everybody on the planet's just a breed of African ape in my book.

Your insight is astonishing. Really profound. You must have finished at the very top of your CSPE class? I'm impressed.

Until this moment I and, I can safely say, the rest of the great unwashed peasantry were certain that millenia ago our ancestors sprouted up from the ground upon which we currently live. Now, thanks to O'Coonassa it seems this is not so. Amazing. Imagine that. Move aside Charles Darwin.

One of the great thinkers of our time.

O'Coonassa

Rebelheart wrote: »

"The fact is" ? You really are a woeful little charlatan. Can you show us Ortelius's map where he uses the English term "British Isles" in 1570, i.e. before John Dee in 1577? How very advanced of a Flemish mapmaker to be using a relatively minor European language like English in 1570 on his maps when everybody else was writing in Latin (or French). Maybe you should tell the Oxford English Dictionary this "fact".

So much for yet another O'Coonassa historical "fact". Your apology is accepted.

Lolol you're incredible, that's some psychosis, you should try Risperdal

Ortelius isn't good enough for you? He wrote it in Latin as Britannicar insularum and not your native English. Oh the irony of you being a snob for the English language lol

RaverRo808

Whats the problem with just saying Ireland???