Clare/Britain

Fratton Fred

Why does irealnd get a mention and not England, Scotland or Wales.

Lets just call it the English, Scottish, Irish(Both republic of and northern) welsh, Man, Orkneys, Hebredes, Jersey, Arann, Sark, Alderney, Scilly, Shetland, err Dalkey and Rockall Isles.

I can see that catching on and it should keep all the PC brigade nice and happy.

Personally I'll just refer to it as the British Isles.

ejmaztec

Rebelheart wrote: »

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

I think that you're mixing up geography, history and persecution.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why does irealnd get a mention and not England, Scotland or Wales.

Because Ireland is and Island, and England is not. Britain & Ireland are the two main Islands, and therefore - British & Irish Isles is perfectly suitable.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Personally I'll just refer to it as the British Isles.

Go for it Ted.

Euro_Kraut

Quint wrote: »

We should just call the whole collection of islands Atlantis

That sounds cool. Maybe we need to think out of the box - something like 'Kick-Ass Islands' or 'Isles of Men of the Long Penises'.

There was a propasal a few years back at a British-Irish Council meeting to adpot the term IONA. Islands of the North Atlantic. (I'll see if I can get the link later)

However Iceland were not to keen on that so it was droped, appartently. My guess is that the Unionists in the North were not keen on losing the British part of the Isles.

Rebelheart

kraggy wrote: »

Jesus, are teachers not teaching kids anything anymore?

Ireland is part of the British Isles. Did ye not know that?

It annoys me too that it's still used as a geographical term. But it is and has been for centuries.

I'd seriously worry about the sort of teachers you've had if you have been indoctrinated into accepting Ireland is, as the British say it is, in the "British Isles".

In Irish, Ireland has historically been part of 'Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa', the Western European Islands. And before the usual British nationalist myth-making is engaged in by Paddies who think they are educated just by virtue of accepting what the British claim, 'Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa' is recorded not only in Dineen's, Foclóir Gaeilge Béarla, Irish-English Dictionary (Dublin, 1927) but at least as far back as the sixteenth century in the Annals of the Four Masters in M. 1584.2:

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html (Irish version)

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005E/text009.html (English translation)

Riamfada

I read in the paper today that they are going to move the statue of O'Connell to make way for the new metro. I would have thought that the republicans of this website would be more in arms about that than the simple geographical term for an area of north west europe.

Anyway if you feel that strongly about it write to Westminster and ask them to have it offically changed. lol

Quint

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lets just call it the English, Scottish, Irish(Both republic of and northern) welsh, Man, Orkneys, Hebredes, Jersey, Arann, Sark, Alderney, Scilly, Shetland, err Dalkey and Rockall Isles.

I can see that catching on and it should keep all the PC brigade nice and happy.

Don't forget Cornwall. They have a different language. And no doubt Cork people will want a special mention.

Boskowski

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

That term annoys the hell out of my. It is antiquated. Of course it implies British ownership of Ireland.

It only does if you have a chip on your shoulder. Probably coming from some sort of inferiority complex.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

The Austrians would not like allow their Alps to be called the German Alps.

But nonetheless they don't mind being part of the 'deutschprachigem Raum'.
It's just some historical, geographical, cultural stuff. Nobody gives a sh1t unless .... see above.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

It’s just growing a pair of balls and standing up to a class of British person (and some within our own country) who have never really came to terms with Irish independence.

Now me thinks the exact opposite. It would actually be more mature not to give a sh1t about this sort of petty stuff and simply accept things that go back way more than late sixties or 1916 or even 800 years. This petty squabble suggests ... see above

DamoDLK

Quint wrote: »

And no doubt Cork people will want a special mention.

Lol - its funny cause its true! the peoples republic of Cork (loike) - indeed.

Rebelheart

BennyLava wrote: »

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

Or maybe if people like you don't like to face the historical fact that the term is, in its origins and use, a political term you could invent some utopian English Tudor state of your own where you will not have to face such historical realities, never mind the political reality of most of Ireland not being under your control.

It's 2009, not 1909. Get with it.

getz

Des wrote: »

What about Rockall? :P

rockall is part of the british isles,first landed on by the royal navy in 1810 it is part of the western isles council,

dlofnep

realcam wrote: »

It only does if you have a chip on your shoulder. Probably coming from some sort of inferiority complex.

Opposed to the people who have a subservient complex, and still want association with their former rulers? Does National Geographic have a chip in their shoulder, as they do not use the term?

The reality of the matter is, "British Isles" is not used in any Irish education texts. The term is outdated and has no value. Why should we continue to use it?

Quint

dlofnep wrote: »

The term is outdated and has no value. Why should we continue to use it?

To annoy people that are offended by it

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Because Ireland is and Island, and England is not. Britain & Ireland are the two main Islands, and therefore - British & Irish Isles is perfectly suitable.

Why limit it to only two, why not three or four?

In fact, why even bother mentioning the second largest of the islands and just stick to namimg the group of islands after the biggest (Or "Main" one to use your phrase), just like pretty much every other island group.

tbh, the british and irish isles just sounds like someone from Ireland jumping up and down shouting "and me, and me, don't forget me".

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

or 'Isles of Men of the Long Penises'.

I can see how that would apply to Britain, but how does it apply to Ireland;)

Riamfada

dlofnep wrote: »

The reality of the matter is, "British Isles" is not used in any Irish education texts.

Probably because of people like you who have given up on getting the six counties back and are looking to assert their anti-british tendancies through stupid causes

humanji

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'd seriously worry about the sort of teachers you've had if you have been indoctrinated into accepting Ireland is, as the British say it is, in the "British Isles".

In Irish, Ireland has historically been part of 'Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa', the Western European Islands. And before the usual British nationalist myth-making is engaged in by Paddies who think they are educated just by virtue of accepting what the British claim, 'Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa' is recorded not only in Dineen's, Foclóir Gaeilge Béarla, Irish-English Dictionary (Dublin, 1927) but at least as far back as the sixteenth century in the Annals of the Four Masters in M. 1584.2:

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html (Irish version)

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005E/text009.html (English translation)

And the term "British Islands" which includes Ireland goes back to the 10th century. Wow, it's like a really pointless game of Top Trumps.

Rebelheart

humanji wrote: »

How can Britain be called an Isle then?

Britain doesn't have to claim to be British; it is patently British. The term was designed to assert British suzerainty over Britain's surrounding isles and, later, Ireland. These places, in the new myth-making which underpinned the emerging English state called Great Britain and later, Great Britain and Ireland, were not British so Britishness had to be asserted over them, hence the "British Isles".

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why limit it to only two, why not three or four?

North-west Atlantic Isles could be used for all I care. At least it would be accurate. Should we call them all the Irish Isles? that wouldn't suit your agenda then, would it?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

tbh, the british and irish isles just sounds like someone from Ireland jumping up and down shouting "and me, and me, don't forget me".

Wrong. National Geographic isn't jumping around. The term is just flat-out inaccurate, outdated and nonsensical. I don't live on the British Isles. I live on Ireland.

_blank_

Yeah Fratton Fred, your "agenda" is unwelcome here. :pac:

dlofnep

Grimes wrote: »

Probably because of people like you who have given up on getting the six counties back and are looking to assert their anti-british tendancies through stupid causes

Not Anti-British, just geographically and politically accurate naming. The term is not used by our Government, not used in our Education, not used by many organisations without an agenda such as National Geographic. It's that simple really. We don't live on the British Isles.

Rebelheart

humanji wrote: »

And the term "British Islands" which includes Ireland goes back to the 10th century. Wow, it's like a really pointless game of Top Trumps.

And your source for this is what? Before you even answer I'll tell you for a fact that you have no support for this British nationalist myth-making rubbish.

PS: As any good British nationalist will tell you, there is a difference between British Isles and British Islands, but seeing as you asserted that the latter included Ireland in the 10th century, we'll just overlook this distinction, which is of some importance in British nationalism today.

Riamfada

Im pretty sure that besides two people who are posting in this thread that no one in this country really cares.

Riamfada

Rebelheart wrote: »

this British nationalist myth-making rubbish.

Thats very rich coming from some of your posts

McArmalite

dlofnep wrote: »

Not Anti-British, just geographically and politically accurate naming. The term is not used by our Government, not used in our Education, not used by many organisations without an agenda such as National Geographic. It's that simple really. We don't live on the British Isles.

You see dlofnep they suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Rebelheart

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Every island in and around Britain and Ireland is part of a geographical area called the British isles. The term pre-dates the foundation of Britain as a nation, and indeed Britain took its political name from the geographical one.

More undereducated British nationalist propaganda. See my earlier post if you genuinely want the historical origin of this term.

dlofnep

Grimes wrote: »

Im pretty sure that besides two people who are posting in this thread that no one in this country really cares.

Enough that care that warranted with the entire curriculum being updated, and the Dáil having to clarify it. People don't care because they rarely hear the term - but you could be sure that if someone mentioned the term in relation to Ireland, they'd be surely questioned on it.

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

Opposed to the people who have a subservient complex, and still want association with their former rulers? Does National Geographic have a chip in their shoulder, as they do not use the term?

The reality of the matter is, "British Isles" is not used in any Irish education texts. The term is outdated and has no value. Why should we continue to use it?

the reason it is not used in irish schools is because of the anti/british republican hate that has been part of the republics teachings since 1948,when pressure was put onto the republic to pull out of the commonwealth by republicans,even if it ment that ireland would have gone bankrupt without commonwealth and british trade,as it was the commonwealth decided not to treat ireland as they would any other foreign country, and they allowed them to all the advantages of trade ect as any other commonwealth country [but it was a close thing ] it would also have restricted the movement of irish citizens in the UK

Boskowski

dlofnep wrote: »

Opposed to the people who have a subservient complex, and still want association with their former rulers? Does National Geographic have a chip in their shoulder, as they do not use the term?

I don't know. Certainly not me. I'm German. We don't do inferiority or subservient complexes.

Whether correct or incorrect, I think it's petty. We call them the 'britischen Inseln' and we have no agenda there.
Also, as a blow-in I can tell you (but you know that yourself) you have sooo much more in common with the Brits than with anyone else in Europe - that for us on the continent (at least for the more ignorant ones) you're all the same. Ugly, uneducated, filthy, fornicating drunkards.

humanji

Rebelheart wrote: »

Britain doesn't have to claim to be British; it is patently British. The term was designed to assert British suzerainty over Britain's surrounding isles and, later, Ireland. These places, in the new myth-making which underpinned the emerging English state called Great Britain and later, Great Britain and Ireland, were not British so Britishness had to be asserted over them, hence the "British Isles".

So it should be "The British Isles, The Irish Isles, Great Britain, The Republic of Ireland and The Peoples Republic of Cork"?

To be honest, I still go with the "calling it the British Isles" for brevity. As you say it's 2009, so I'm going to get over all the pettiness, realise that sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me, and move on.

dlofnep

realcam wrote: »

Ugly, uneducated, filthy, fornicating drunkards.

I will take that as a compliment.

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

the reason it is not used in irish schools is because of the anti/british republican hate that has been part of the republics teachings since 1948,when pressure was put onto the republic to pull out of the commonwealth by republicans,even if it ment that ireland would have gone bankrupt without commonwealth and british trade,as it was the commonwealth decided not to treat ireland as they would any other foreign country, and they allowed them to all the advantages of trade ect as any other commonwealth country [but it was a close thing ] it would also have restricted the movement of irish citizens in the UK

Trade between Ireland & Britain made sense from an economic standpoint, that is the only reason that such trade agreement exist.

It has nothing to do with "Republican hate", it has to do with clarification of a geographical inaccuracy. Like I said - Is National Geographic a Republican stronghold for hate?

Names change all the time in Geography. Should we call East & West Germany, East & West Germany or Germany? The reality of the matter is - A vast array of the Islands within this said "British Isles" area are not British. There is nothing wrong with an updated definition of the term. Irish & British Isles is just fine. I don't see what the big objection is. Would you seriously object that much to the Isles being renamed to something more accurate?

Rebelheart

Grimes wrote: »

Thats very rich coming from some of your posts

What undereducated nonsense are you talking, son?

If you have a problem with any of that history address it rather than attempt to make snide comments on these historical facts. You haven't addressed the central fact that the term "British Isles" can only be dated to a British imperialist in 1577. Fact. Fact. Fact. Just let it sink in.

Instead you resort to supporting British nationalist myths that it is a "geographical" term over the historical reality that the earliest record of "British Isles" is from John Dee, a guy who was explicitly an imperialist and was attempting to assert Tudor authority over Ireland.

In your world, the myth has become the fact and the fact has become the myth. And you insult me for bringing home the historical fact. Pathetic really.

Mossy Monk

Screw you geography for insulting a part of the populace.

Boskowski

dlofnep wrote: »

I will take that as a compliment.

And so you should be, I'd love to be called that. Merely hoping this thread would be perfect to stir up some sh1t.

Fratton Fred

Des wrote: »

Yeah Fratton Fred, your "agenda" is unwelcome here. :pac:

damn, my agenda was spotted.

what was my agenda again :D

Grimes wrote: »

Im pretty sure that besides two people who are posting in this thread that no one in this country really cares.

but you have to hand it to them, they are passionate about it.

and obviously far more irish than all the west Brits" on here

realcam wrote: »

Whether correct or incorrect, I think it's petty. We call them the 'britischen Inseln' and we have no agenda there.
Also, as a blow-in I can tell you (but you know that yourself) you have sooo much more in common with the Brits than with anyone else in Europe - that for us on the continent (at least for the more ignorant ones) you're all the same. Ugly, uneducated, filthy, fornicating drunkards.

Maybe, but we have a sense of humour and our women don't have hairy armpits.

stick that up your Lederhosen sausage muncher:D

BennyLava

Rebelheart wrote: »

Or maybe if people like you don't like to face the historical fact that the term is, in its origins and use, a political term you could invent some utopian English Tudor state of your own where you will not have to face such historical realities, never mind the political reality of most of Ireland not being under your control.

It's 2009, not 1909. Get with it.

It also appears some people are so rabid, their uber nationalism has bypassed their sarcasm switch

What does it matter what the collective name for a group of islands is, is your national identity/self image so insecure?
There are a lot more important thing in life to get worked up about, that a label in an atlas.

Rebelheart

getz wrote: »

the reason it is not used in irish schools is because of the anti/british republican hate that has been part of the republics teachings since 1948

The reason it has been used is because of the pro-British, pro-Empire, anti-Catholic/Papist/Paddy/Fenian culture of the people who use it as an attempt to claim British dominance over Ireland.

Oh yes, that glorious pipedream of all the 'British' people of this great 'British Isles' being reunited as one glorious nation once again, once these lower class rather crude nationalist Irish get over their, em, er, nationalism.

Now, the British? No, they'd never lower themselves to nationalism or nationalist assertions over peoples across the world, never mind around them. Classy people indeed.

getz

dlofnep wrote: »

Trade between Ireland & Britain made sense from an economic standpoint, that is the only reason that such trade agreement exist.

It has nothing to do with "Republican hate", it has to do with clarification of a geographical inaccuracy. Like I said - Is National Geographic a Republican stronghold for hate?

Names change all the time in Geography. Should we call East & West Germany, East & West Germany or Germany? The reality of the matter is - A vast array of the Islands within this said "British Isles" area are not British. There is nothing wrong with an updated definition of the term. Irish & British Isles is just fine. I don't see what the big objection is. Would you seriously object that much to the Isles being renamed to something more accurate?

you could call it what ever the people on these islands wish it to be,but if you put it to a vote ! i suppose you could call it the north atlantic islands, then in a few years time scotland or wales may get independence an wish to call it somthing else,the only people in the world that has a issue with this is the irish republic,dont you think the citizens of northern ireland also have a right to have a say ? on the trade agreement see reform.org a dublin website

Rebelheart

BennyLava wrote: »

It also appears some people are so rabid, their uber nationalism has bypassed their sarcasm switch

What does it matter what the collective name for a group of islands is, is your national identity/self image so insecure?
There are a lot more important thing in life to get worked up about, that a label in an atlas.

Spare us the superficial lecture on 'names don't matter' when everybody knows they, in fact, matter - and often very much indeed.

Your use of a German word to describe a hardline nationalist didn't bypass me; it seems there is no word in English to describe a hardline nationalist. Ahem. If that's not filling a stereotype....

Rebelheart

Des wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Morons tbh.

The original "Britons" were the people who lived in these islands before the Romans, and the Angles/Saxons, and the Vikings and the Normans.

Em, sorry to burst the myth but they weren't. There is a basic distinction between P or Brythonic Celtic, which was spoken in, surprise surprise, Britain, and Q or Goidelic Celtic, which originated in Ireland.

So much for the "morons".

humanji

Rebelheart wrote: »

And your source for this is what? Before you even answer I'll tell you for a fact that you have no support for this British nationalist myth-making rubbish.

PS: As any good British nationalist will tell you, there is a difference between British Isles and British Islands, but seeing as you asserted that the latter included Ireland in the 10th century, we'll just overlook this distinction, which is of some importance in British nationalism today.

The term Breotone Ealond (there's a fada thingy over the A, that I can't remember how to do) is the old term for british Islands. If you don't know something as basic as this then it gives the impression that the rest of your "facts" are just googled.

PS, the only reason I pointed this out in the first place is because you brought 16th century writings into it. Which is fairly irrelevant. All this thread has shown is that some people hate the English so much, that the tiniest insignificant thing will send them into a fury.

_blank_

Rebelheart wrote: »

Em, sorry to burst the myth but they weren't. There is a basic distinction between P or Brythonic Celtic, which was spoken in, surprise surprise, Britain, and Q or Goidelic Celtic, which originated in Ireland.

So much for the "morons".

Nope.

The Celtic-language people arrived to the islands, it wasn't until after they arrived that it branched.

And, it's called "Brythonic" because it was spoken in that part of the island.

Q-Celtic most certainly did not "originate" in Ireland.

However.

The islands were called the "Pritanic" islands long before any "nationalism" too over.

This "Isles/Islands" pedantry is insufferable.

sock puppet

Rebelheart wrote: »

Spare us the superficial lecture on 'names don't matter' when everybody knows they, in fact, matter - and often very much indeed.

Your use of a German word to describe a hardline nationalist didn't bypass me; it seems there is no word in English to describe a hardline nationalist. Ahem. If that's not filling a stereotype....

Jingoism?

getz

humanji wrote: »

The term Breotone Ealond (there's a fada thingy over the A, that I can't remember how to do) is the old term for british Islands. If you don't know something as basic as this then it gives the impression that the rest of your "facts" are just googled.

PS, the only reason I pointed this out in the first place is because you brought 16th century writings into it. Which is fairly irrelevant. All this thread has shown is that some people hate the English so much, that the tiniest insignificant thing will send them into a fury.

i am surprised they speak the dreaded english language,or do they wish to change that name ?

Rebelheart

Des wrote: »

Only to an imbecile, tbh.

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.

People need to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain#Etymology

And there are plenty of imbeciles, as testified to by the circulation figures for British tabloids. If you are going to link wikipedia, then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles is the article with the history of this term. The 30 archives of discussion have much more information about the political nature of this term.

humanji

getz wrote: »

i am surprised they speak the dreaded english language,or do they wish to change that name ?

"The Tongue of Them Across The Water" should do it.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

The reason it has been used is because of the pro-British, pro-Empire, anti-Catholic/Papist/Paddy/Fenian culture of the people who use it as an attempt to claim British dominance over Ireland.

Oh yes, that glorious pipedream of all the 'British' people of this great 'British Isles' being reunited as one glorious nation once again, once these lower class rather crude nationalist Irish get over their, em, er, nationalism.

Now, the British? No, they'd never lower themselves to nationalism or nationalist assertions over peoples across the world, never mind around them. Classy people indeed.

it has nothing to do with British nationalism, it has more to do with British "Not giving a feck-ism" to be honest.

do you really think there are thousands of Brits sat at home trying to work out how to reclaim Ireland?

dlofnep

Des wrote: »

Nope.
Q-Celtic most certainly did not "originate" in Ireland.

Actually it did. Q-Celtic is the goidelic branch of Celtic languages which originated in Ireland, and the extended to Scotland and the Isle of Man. It's existence predates the 6th century. It's earliest origins are from Primitive Irish.

getz

humanji wrote: »

"The Tongue of Them Across The Water" should do it.

good on ya,i like that one

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it has nothing to do with British nationalism, it has more to do with British "Not giving a feck-ism" to be honest.

Not giving a fúck would imply you'd stay of this conversation. You actively give a fúck and are quite happy to see the term British Isles being used, but are unhappy to see British & Irish Isles - Why is that?