Clare/Britain

_blank_

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

So? Are you saying we go back to calling it Hibernia? Words and meaning change over time. We have to adapt. The Roman meant no harm back than. They thought the world was flat though and didn't know American existed. I fail to see why in 2009 we should be using their definition particularly that it has (as this thread proves) taken on a political dimension.

It has only taken on a "political dimension" because certain knuckle-draggers have made it so.

Words don't actually mean anything until people attach meaning to them.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

:eek:The Romans colonised Ireland???

Nope, they couldn't. The British natives were too strong for them here, and in the highlands of Scotland, and certain parts of Wales.

Also, they couldn't, because of the splintered nature of the political spectrum at the time.

getz

Adamisconfused wrote: »

The English can call it what they want. I have no problem with that. If the people who live in the sea have a problem then they can call it something else.:rolleyes:

ok ,i now name it the WC

AnonoBoy

If my memory and 6th class history lessons serve me correctly Ireland only came into common global usage as a name for our island sometime around the summer of Italia '90.

_blank_

Look, the fact is that the term "British" refers to the Celtic-language-speaking population of the islands which lived here before the Romans came to Britannia.

getz

the celts of gaul called it the pretani isles,the greeks called it the pretanic isles, and caesar called it the brittani isles,

_blank_

getz wrote: »

the celts of gaul called it the pretani isles,the greeks called it the pretanic isles, and caesar called it the brittani isles,

It's all the same word though.

Long Onion

Relax everybody, the shark is dead now and can't hurt anyone.

Now Gordon, you give that nice Brian man back his counties and play like you're friends.

See, sorted ...

sock puppet

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

So? Are you saying we go back to calling it Hibernia? Words and meaning change over time. We have to adapt. The Roman meant no harm back than. They thought the world was flat though and didn't know American existed. I fail to see why in 2009 we should be using their definition particularly that it has (as this thread proves) taken on a political dimension.

That's a myth actually. One of the most widely accepted myths you'll find in history too. Humans have known that the earth is round for thousands of years. Pretty much no one has ever thought that the world is flat.

Adamisconfused

Des wrote: »

It's what the Romans called the Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(name)

The term Prittanic Isles was as foreign to Irish at the time as the term British isles is today. Are you saying that the inhabitants of this island used that Term? Most definitely, the name has not been in use continually for the last two thousand years.

Des wrote: »

In fact, the whole population of the Islands were called "British"

That isn't true. Where did you get this from?
Emm.... Hibernia.

Des wrote: »

Priteni/Cruithne is the source of the names of the two branches of Celtic Languages (P-Celtic is Welsh/Cornish/Breton, and Q-Celtic is Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx, where the initial sound of various related words has either a "P" or a "Q/K/C")

Priteni/Cruithne was never used to describe the general Irish population. Most likely it refers to the small population of picts on the island.

Riamfada

I like that we are part of the British Isles. It gives us a sense of class and safistication associated with it. Class and safistication we could never acchieve on our own.


Let us bask in your reflected glory.... REFLECTED GLORY!!11!!


PS: Des is right, dont even try to argue with him on this

Euro_Kraut

Des wrote: »

It has only taken on a "political dimension" because certain knuckle-draggers have made it so.

Words don't actually mean anything until people attach meaning to them.

Exactly. Nowadays the word British refers to another Island. Much in the way the word German now just refers to modern day Germany and not Austria, Bohemia etc.

In my opinion, its knuckle dragging to want to hold on to such an antiquated term. The USSR was once a good term to describe Russia – now it’s a stupid term. Same with the British Isles.

Arguing the phrase shouldn't be changed on account of history is the debating equivalent of arguing the marijuana should not be made legal because it is against the law.

Riamfada

Its geology for gods sake

_blank_

Grimes wrote: »

PS: Des is right, dont even try to argue with him on this

From the Archaeology Mod.

Go me!

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

The USSR was once a good term to describe Russia

For idiots, maybe.

The USSR was a Union of Soviet Republics. Russia was one of those republics, the strongest even.

But I never used the term to mean just Russia.

I'm not an idiot.

nibtrix

Des wrote: »

Like it or not, the island of Ireland is the second largest of the archipelago, after the island of Great Britain. (Great meaning the largest, not "better"), and archipelagos usually take their name from the largest island of the group.

"great" meaning large or immense, we use it in the pejorative sense!

Adamisconfused

Grimes wrote: »

I like that we are part of the British Isles. It gives us a sense of class and safistication associated with it. Class and safistication we could never acchieve on our own.


Let us bask in your reflected glory.... REFLECTED GLORY!!11!!


PS: Des is right, dont even try to argue with him on this

Prove that he is correct. I know that he is wrong. You saying so means absolutely nothing.

Davidius

I'm too lazy to write a response durr hurr

Despite that the term 'the British Isles' is supposed to be purely geographical, it still confuses the Hell out of foreigners as to whether Ireland is or is not part of the UK. You don't have to be stupid to make that mistake either. It's common enough.

Also a few Brits don't like accepting our secession from the Union and like to go throw around "well Ireland's not part of the UK but it's part of the BRITISH Isles lolololol that makes you brits lolololol" which is also kind of annoying.

There's no reason not to change it really. Less people will be confused and some of us will have one less thing to complain about. Win win.

Euro_Kraut

Des wrote: »

The USSR was a Union of Soviet Republics. Russia was one of those republics, the strongest even.

But I never used the term to mean just Russia.

I'm not an idiot.

So you reckon people who paraphrased the USSR for Russia are idiots - yet you reckon the terms British Isles to describe Inis mór is smart.

I get the feeling we are not going to find a middle ground on this one.


Let move this on a bit. Rather that arguing if it is correct or not why not phrase it like this: Should the term British be continued to be used? Is it the best possible term? I would argue that is it leads to ambiguity. We have seen that on this thread and I have encountered problems in abroad when people assume Ireland is in Great Britain on account of having learned about the British Isles in geography class.

Words change. Why not change this one?

PS: Just because it’s not the most important issue facing humanity right now is not a reason. First to say 'Who cares’? Have we nothing better to worry about etc' should get slap :P

BennyLava

A simple solution for one and all

If you don't like Ireland been part of the British isles (a geographical term)

move here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ireland_(island)

see problem solved

getz

there is often the same confusion about the netherlands,how often do we all mistakenly refer to it as holland? yet holland is only a provence of the netherlands, they never get upset ,because they are more adult about it

indough

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Words change. Why not change this one?

PS: Just because it’s not the most important issue facing humanity right now is not a reason. First to say 'Who cares’? Have we nothing better to worry about etc' should get slap :P

words often stay the same. why change this one?

PS: First to say 'because we dont like being associated with the british in any way including even something as insignificant and unimportant as this etc' should get slap :P

Euro_Kraut

indough wrote: »

words often stay the same. why change this one?

For the reasons I outlined in my post above.

PS: First to say 'because we dont like being associated with the british in any way including even something as insignificant and unimportant as this etc' should get slap :P

I agree. Changing it based on pure Anglophoia would be wrong. I guess we both disagree that this is insignificant though. Otherwise niether one of us would have posted here.

Fratton Fred

Des wrote: »

Um, tell that to the Americans. North, Central and South.

A point that appears to have been conveniently ignored.

I wonder how the Canadians feel about living in the "Americas".

lapses

Why is it so important about how Ireland was referred to back in the time of the Celts. Forget about that. We are in 2009 here.

Everybody knows about the troubles between Britain and Ireland. And we should at least be recognized as our own country, not as 'one of the Islands in the British Isles'.

Besides it does cause confusion. I was in America recently and some people over there were under the impression that Ireland was part of Britain (though maybe not because of British Isle thing) - but that just adds to the confusion.

We are our own country, we shouldn't be seen as a subsidiary of another country.

Just my 2 cents

tolosenc

Adamisconfused wrote: »

If geographical terminology refers to us then we should have a say.

Are you suggesting a dictionary edited by plebiscite?

LET'S VOTE ON ALL THE WORDS!!!

indough

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

For the reasons I outlined in my post above.

but they are not good reasons, and i have never met anyone abroad who thought ireland was part of the uk just because of this term, so its a bit of a non issue

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I agree. Changing it based on pure Anglophoia would be wrong. I guess we both disagree that this is insignificant though. Otherwise niether one of us would have posted here.

no, i posted here because i cant believe people are making a big deal out of something so insignificant

Quint

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

So you reckon people who paraphrased the USSR for Russia are idiots - yet you reckon the terms British Isles to describe Inis mór is smart.

Think you're missing the point here. No one has used the term "British Isles" to describe Inis Mor. But to say it's part of the british isles, then yes, 100% correct.
I think the poor south americans feel the same. They want to get rid of the "America" bit from the name of their continent because people think The United States of America own it. Don't even mention the mexicans and canadians being part of North America

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Let move this on a bit. Rather that arguing if it is correct or not why not phrase it like this: Should the term British be continued to be used? Is it the best possible term? I would argue that is it leads to ambiguity. We have seen that on this thread and I have encountered problems in abroad when people assume Ireland is in Great Britain on account of having learned about the British Isles in geography class

So, what you're saying is, we should change the name for idiots?

Euro_Kraut

indough wrote: »

but they are not good reasons, and i have never met anyone abroad who thought ireland was part of the uk just because of this term, so its a bit of a non issue

I have. And other posters have said that here too. Just because you have never came across does not mean it doesn't exist.

getz

Quint wrote: »

Think you're missing the point here. No one has used the term "British Isles" to describe Inis Mor. But to say it's part of the british isles, then yes, 100% correct.
I think the poor south americans feel the same. They want to get rid of the "America" bit from the name of their continent because people think The United States of America own it. Don't even mention the mexicans and canadians being part of North America

you are making that up, show me

tolosenc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wonder how the Canadians feel about living in the "Americas".

It's not being from the Americas, but rather the United States being refered to as "America", that is more likely to boil the blood maple syrup of any Canadian.

Fratton Fred

lapses wrote: »

Besides it does cause confusion. I was in America recently and some people over there were under the impression that Ireland was part of Britain (though maybe not because of British Isle thing) - but that just adds to the confusion.

We are our own country, we shouldn't be seen as a subsidiary of another country.

Just my 2 cents

Where is this place "America" of which you speak? is that the group of countries a few thousand miles west of the British Isles?

Aidric

Clarehobo wrote: »

Then again, you being a junkie from a scumbag council estate in Dublin, I'm surprised you even know how to read, let alone type! Go out to the bordwalk and shoot up like the rest of your mates who have never managed to leave the "fair city" and start bleating on about how great Dublin is and how all the culchies are Gardaí who victimise poor Dubs like yourself!

What's funny is that you give your location as Dublin. Fcuk me, facepalm.

AnonoBoy

obl wrote: »

LET'S VOTE ON ALL THE WORDS!!!

I vote 'table' be changed to 'stuff holder' and 'laptop' be changed to 'porno box'

Rebelheart

There is so much historically illiterate nonsense in this thread it is astonishing. Some people are very keen to accept myths that this term is "geographical".

All of these people who claim that the term "British Isles" is merely "geographical" are clearly oblivious to the fact that the earliest recorded use of the term is by one John Dee in 1577. This is according to the Oxford English Dictionary. There is no record of the term "British Isles" in the English language prior to this. Re-read.

John Dee was, according to all of his biographers, an imperialist. He aspired to the recreation of a mythical kingdom of Britain under the rule of the Tudor monarchy of England. Coincidentally - not - when Dee used the term England was attempting to conquer Ireland, asserting that any Irish who resisted that conquest were in "rebellion" because the English crown had a right to rule all of Ireland.

Now, would the "it's only geographical" people please get an education in the origin and uses of this most imperialist of British terms.

dlofnep

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html

Ireland is not apart of the British Isles. It is an outdated term with no merit or value.

Britain and Ireland works just fine.

getz

lapses wrote: »

Why is it so important about how Ireland was referred to back in the time of the Celts. Forget about that. We are in 2009 here.

Everybody knows about the troubles between Britain and Ireland. And we should at least be recognized as our own country, not as 'one of the Islands in the British Isles'.

Besides it does cause confusion. I was in America recently and some people over there were under the impression that Ireland was part of Britain (though maybe not because of British Isle thing) - but that just adds to the confusion.

We are our own country, we shouldn't be seen as a subsidiary of another country.

Just my 2 cents

dont take much notice of the yanks, some of them believe that england is in london

irishgrover

dlofnep wrote: »

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html

Ireland is not apart of the British Isles. It is an outdated term with no merit or value.

Britain and Ireland works just fine.

and one wonders why SF need to have a love in in Navan, to try and figure out what the vast majority of people in this country think they are irrelevant :rolleyes:

Rebelheart

ToTheSea: wrote: »

aren't we geographically part of the british isle? just not politically?

Er, no. Re-read the history of this term.

dlofnep

irishgrover wrote: »

and one wonders why SF need to have a love in in Navan, to try and figure out what the vast majority of people in this country think they are irrelevant :rolleyes:

Uh, what? What you've said makes absolutely no sense in relation to my post. Try keep on topic.

ejmaztec

Rebelheart wrote: »

Er, no. Re-read the history of this term.

Geographically since 1577?

Quint

dlofnep wrote: »

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html

Ireland is not apart of the British Isles. It is an outdated term with no merit or value.

Britain and Ireland works just fine.

You mean Great Britain. And don't forget Isle of Man and Channel Islands

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0606/D.0606.200509280360.html

Ireland is not apart of the British Isles. It is an outdated term with no merit or value.

Britain and Ireland works just fine.

what about the Isle of man? or the channel islands?

Rebelheart

Clarehobo wrote: »

Sorry to ruin the rant but the island of Ireland is part of the British isles geographically.
The didn't say Britian(England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall). They didn't sat the United Kingdom(Britian plus Northern Ireland). They said the British isles. We are in the British isles, as is the isle of man, our Atlantic islands, etc...

Sorry to ruin the political propaganda but there is very little - nay, nothing - "geographical" about this term, either in its origins or in its current use.

Amazing how those who subscribe to a revisionist view of Irish history - such as "it's only geographical" - are wilfully ignoring the profoundly imperialist origins of this term, preferring instead myths to historical fact and verifiability.

Contemptible.

Cookie_Monster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what about the Isle of man?

British and Irish Isles

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or the channel islands?

Name is in the name:)

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what about the Isle of man? or the channel islands?

What about them? 'Isles' indicates very small islands, which Ireland most certainly is not compared to Britain. 'Island' is a different word.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what about the Isle of man? or the channel islands?

The Isle of Man can be apart of the British Isles, as it is Crown dependant. The Channel Islands also. The Channel Islands could be just the Channel Islands on their own. Whatever the people want.

Ireland is it's own Island, with it's own set of Islands (Aran, Saltees and so on).

British Isles.

Irish Isles.

Combine them together and you have the Irish and British Isles, or British and Irish Isles.

I don't see what the problem is with having a more accurate and modern name for the two Islands, and their Islands. I do see a problem with labeling them as the British Isles however, because it is not accurate and is completely outdated. Even National Geographic doesn't use the term anymore.

Rebelheart

ejmaztec wrote: »

Geographically since 1577?

Yes, just like English and British rule in Ireland has been "geographical since 1577"?

humanji

Rebelheart wrote: »

What about them? 'Isles' indicates very small islands, which Ireland most certainly is not compared to Britain. 'Island' is a different word.

How can Britain be called an Isle then?

_blank_

What about Rockall? :P

Quint

I object to the name "British and Irish Isles". Why is British first? That gives the impression that they're better than us:mad:
We should just call the whole collection of islands Atlantis

hatetherain!

Dam British trying to take the credit for our fab fish!!! LOL:D