Clare/Britain

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 3:56pm

Des wrote: »

Nope.

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

Er, this is meant to contradict my statement that Q-Celtic originated on the island?

Des wrote: »

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

What part of what island? Certainly not Ireland.

Des wrote: »

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

In fact it did. As you even admit yourself, the distinction arose when they arrived in Ireland. The reason a Q-Celtic language is spoken in northern Britain is because of Irish (Scotti) migration to that area from the 5th century onwards.

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

Des wrote: »

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

And what is the relevance of this to when they were called the "British Isles"? I notice you are avoiding facing that most political of facts.

Des wrote: »

This "Isles/Islands" pedantry is insufferable.

Yes, distinctions and nuances tend to be so when they are inconvenient.

Fratton Fred · 10-08-2009 3:57pm

dlofnep wrote: »

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?

Because it is one of the most hilarious threads after hours has seen in ages.:D

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because it is one of the most hilarious threads after hours has seen in ages.:D

Answer the question? You actively came in here, while masquerading as not caring - with intent to give credence to the term British Isles. Any attempts by people wishing to give a more accurate and up to date naming of the Islands was shunned off.

I'm sorry Freddy - But you can pretend that you're not actively involved, but you are and are certainly pressing for the use of the term British Isles, opposed to not caring about what term is used as you've stated.

My estimate is that you want the term British Isles to be used. Or at least, this is what I can gather from your posts. So if you are actively pushing for the term to be used, say so - instead of pretending to be casually posting about how you don't care what term is used. I'd respect you more for it.

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 4:06pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

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

And there is, of course, no relationship. Like, if Ireland were 3000km from Britain Irish history would have run the same course. Indeed.

humanji · 10-08-2009 4:12pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Answer the question? You actively came in here, while masquerading as not caring - with intent to give credence to the term British Isles. Any attempts by people wishing to give a more accurate and up to date naming of the Islands was shunned off.

I'm sorry Freddy - But you can pretend that you're not actively involved, but you are and are certainly pressing for the use of the term British Isles, opposed to not caring about what term is used as you've stated.

My estimate is that you want the term British Isles to be used. Or at least, this is what I can gather from your posts. So if you are actively pushing for the term to be used, say so - instead of pretending to be casually posting about how you don't care what term is used. I'd respect you more for it.

Maybe he doesn't give a f*ck about the term British Isles, but does give a f*ck about nationalists wanting it changed as a dig at the British?

getz · 10-08-2009 4:15pm

the irish republic can call themselves whatever they want ,but they cannot make the rest of the isles change their name [this includes northern ireland] if they tried to tell the rest of the world that we dont like the word british isles so you must call our part of the ireland whatever,they would think its a irish joke being played on them, i dont like living in europe but i have to except it

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 4:15pm

getz wrote: »

i look out of my window and see the irish sea, i feel insulted i think i dont like that name so i am going to tell everyone that its now called the english sea,it now belongs to the english [get a life]

The name "Irish Sea" was, obviously, invented by the English as a guide to the name of the place they arrived in when they crossed that water. That's a quite different history.

It's a radically different history when the Irish have not been ruling over your country for centuries, dispossessing and discriminating against your people under the name of Irishness and ramming their Irish cultural mores down your people's troats. I'm sure that, in this historical and political context, you'd love to be told by members of that cultural world that you are living in an 'Irish' place.

Less sophisms, please.

ejmaztec · 10-08-2009 4:15pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

And there is, of course, no relationship. Like, if Ireland were 3000km from Britain Irish history would have run the same course. Indeed.

If Ireland were 3000km away from Britain, it would hardly be part of the British Isles in any case, would it? That's stretching even geography a bit far don't you think?

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:16pm

humanji wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't give a f*ck about the term British Isles, but does give a f*ck about nationalists wanting it changed as a dig at the British?

It's not about having a dig at the British. You can keep that for the conspiracy forum. Maybe it's about accurate geography, and removing redundant colonial names. Like I've stated - National Geographic does not use the term, are they nationalists? Our Government has clarified that the term is not used in any official sense in Ireland - are they all nationalists too?

AnonoBoy · 10-08-2009 4:17pm

The fact that this thread has gone on so long speaks volumes about the fact that this thread has gone on so long.

BennyLava · 10-08-2009 4:18pm

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....

Again your reading more into words than is meant, but that shows a determination on your part to be offended,

so here's one for you, your nothing but an anglophone, now be offended to your hearts content

to quote the Bard "a rose by any other name would surely smell as sweet"

I am Irish and am proud to be so, I don't care what labels others may choose to but on me. I am who I am and secure in my identity,

Getting annoyed over a geographical term is the height of silliness, especially when you look at the state of this country and the bunch of morons we have running it

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 4:19pm

humanji wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't give a f*ck about the term British Isles, but does give a f*ck about nationalists wanting it changed as a dig at the British?

Or maybe, considering "British Isles" is, as a matter of historical fact, a British nationalist/imperialist term he would prefer to keep it?

Euro_Kraut · 10-08-2009 4:20pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because it is one of the most hilarious threads after hours has seen in ages.:D

It really isn't. Its probably one of the driest.

getz · 10-08-2009 4:20pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

The name "Irish Sea" was, obviously, invented by the English as a guide to the name of the place they arrived in when they crossed that water. That's a quite different history.

It's a radically different history when the Irish have not been ruling over your country for centuries, dispossessing and discriminating against your people under the name of Irishness and ramming their Irish cultural mores down your people's troats. I'm sure you'd love to be told by members of that cultural world that you are living in an 'Irish' place in that context.

you obviously do not know your irish history. when the irish, quote: lived more in britian as much as they did in ireland ,dividing the country into estates, this was 900ad

BennyLava · 10-08-2009 4:20pm

getz wrote: »

the irish republic can call themselves whatever they want ,but they cannot make the rest of the isles change their name [this includes northern ireland] if they tried to tell the rest of the world that we dont like the word british isles so you must call our part of the ireland whatever,they would think its a irish joke being played on them, i dont like living in europe but i have to except it

I vote that northern Ireland should be called Orangefenianland or Fenianorangeland (have to respect the cultural differences )

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:21pm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

The fact that this thread has gone on so long speaks volumes about the fact that this thread has gone on so long.

Ah come on now, there's a 13 page thread on the recession killing off the spice burger. It's all just a bit of banter.

humanji · 10-08-2009 4:22pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not about having a dig at the British. You can keep that for the conspiracy forum. Maybe it's about accurate geography, and removing redundant colonial names. Like I've stated - National Geographic does not use the term, are they nationalists? Our Government has clarified that the term is not used in any official sense in Ireland - are they all nationalists too?

F*ck all people on the planet use that term. F*ck all people on the planet even refer to the region as a collective. That's why there's no reason to change the name, nobody uses it.

If we're going to be pedantic about this, what about everything else? Does America have to change it's name to reflect who really discovered it? Or should it change it's name to what the Native Americans called it? Or maybe it should have a new name more in line with modern america? Should the Pacific change it's name because it's not actually that peaceful? Should we just get rid of the Indian Ocean, because it's just the Pacific Ocean anyway? We'll end up renaming everything, for nothing.

getz · 10-08-2009 4:22pm

BennyLava wrote: »

I vote that northern Ireland should be called Orangefenianland or Fenianorangeland (have to respect the cultural differences )

imagine people trying to say that mouth full , i will stick to north western british isles

Euro_Kraut · 10-08-2009 4:26pm

humanji wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't give a f*ck about the term British Isles, but does give a f*ck about nationalists wanting it changed as a dig at the British?

Well he should say that then. Is that your motivation?

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 4:26pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

If Ireland were 3000km away from Britain, it would hardly be part of the British Isles in any case, would it? That's stretching even geography a bit far don't you think?

This is a truism, and one which at once shows that the "geographical" term is politically based. Of all the names which "these islands" have been given in history, the name chosen was the one which supported the aims of the newly created Tudor state that was given the name of Great Britain from the early seventeenth century.

ejmaztec · 10-08-2009 4:27pm

Meanwhile, back in the 21st Century.......

If it were to be changed to get rid of this "complex", it should be changed after the recession. This way, because Ireland still has this "British" connection, we can blame the British for fucking up the Irish economy, and sending Ireland back to where it was before some old tit invited them here all those centuries ago.

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:27pm

humanji wrote: »

F*ck all people on the planet use that term. F*ck all people on the planet even refer to the region as a collective. That's why there's no reason to change the name, nobody uses it.

If we're going to be pedantic about this, what about everything else? Does America have to change it's name to reflect who really discovered it? Or should it change it's name to what the Native Americans called it? Or maybe it should have a new name more in line with modern america? Should the Pacific change it's name because it's not actually that peaceful? Should we just get rid of the Indian Ocean, because it's just the Pacific Ocean anyway? We'll end up renaming everything, for nothing.

That's a bit of a pointless rant. Like I said, geographical terms are updated all the time. Even countries change their names. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to update the name of these Islands to reflect a more balanced and accurate ownership of the Isles. Jesus, they even updated The British Lions Rugby team to the British and Irish Lions. What's the problem?

Fratton Fred · 10-08-2009 4:27pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Answer the question? You actively came in here, while masquerading as not caring - with intent to give credence to the term British Isles. Any attempts by people wishing to give a more accurate and up to date naming of the Islands was shunned off.

I'm sorry Freddy - But you can pretend that you're not actively involved, but you are and are certainly pressing for the use of the term British Isles, opposed to not caring about what term is used as you've stated.

My estimate is that you want the term British Isles to be used. Or at least, this is what I can gather from your posts. So if you are actively pushing for the term to be used, say so - instead of pretending to be casually posting about how you don't care what term is used. I'd respect you more for it.

I am one of about 10 posters who think you're idea is nuts, why single me out?

BennyLava · 10-08-2009 4:28pm

If you think about it the fact that we live in the Western Hemisphere is just another construct of the "evil" empire to the East

I vote to move the base longitudinal line to the Mid Atlantic Ridge, so we can be in the Eastern world where we belong

silly no?

Euro_Kraut · 10-08-2009 4:28pm

humanji wrote: »

F*ck all people on the planet use that term. F*ck all people on the planet even refer to the region as a collective. That's why there's no reason to change the name, nobody uses it.

Really? No body? Did you read the start of this thread at all?

Plus:http://news.google.ie/news?um=1&ned=en_ie&hl=en&q=%27british+isles%27&cf=all&scoring=n

All the news articles from today that use the phrase. That is in addition to 835,000 use for the term on google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22british+isles%22&meta=lr%3Dlang_de

And that only in the English langauge. Try French, German etc and I am sure there are loads more.

ejmaztec · 10-08-2009 4:30pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I am one of about 10 posters who think you're idea is nuts, why single me out?

You've been in Ireland too long, and have caught the persecution complex.:eek:

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:31pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I am one of about 10 posters who think you're idea is nuts, why single me out?

The idea of naming the Islands to the British & Irish Isles/Irish & British Isles is nuts? It's only nuts because it doesn't suit you. The same way I consider the naming of the Islands as the British Isles to be nuts. We've already pointed out that the Government does not use the term, educational texts do not use it, and large organisations like National Geographic do not use it. It's not about sanity, it's an issue of accuracy.

I see you still haven't answered my question. I'm not singling you out. I'm engaging in a bit of banter with you.

getz · 10-08-2009 4:34pm

i am on your side fred, lets go get em

ejmaztec · 10-08-2009 4:39pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is a truism, and one which at once shows that the "geographical" term is politically based. Of all the names which "these islands" have been given in history, the name chosen was the one which supported the aims of the newly created Tudor state that was given the name of Great Britain from the early seventeenth century.

No that's interpretation brought on by desperation.

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 4:40pm

getz wrote: »

you obviously do not know your irish history. when the irish, quote: lived more in britian as much as they did in ireland ,dividing the country into estates, this was 900ad

Can you say that again, in English or Irish preferably.

MarchDub · 10-08-2009 4:40pm

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...

Although it is claimed to be a innocuous "geographical" term in fact the term "British Isles" originated around the time of the Irish Act of Union. It was meant to cement the political position of Ireland within a British context - Ireland was never a part of "Britannia" as it was "Hibernia" so the term "British Isles" was a clever political/geographic catchphrase invented at that time to smooth over this discrepancy.

It is historically incorrect to view the term "British Isles" therefore as a simple, jejune expression arising only out of geography. It is in fact fraught with politics. And yes, I object to its use also.

When Norman Davies published his recent work on the History of Britain and Ireland he choose to use the title "The Isles" as an acknowledgment of the political intentions of the other - i.e British Isles - term.

Davidius · 10-08-2009 4:41pm

I don't really see a good reason to not change it. Most of it seems to be "who cares?" and/or somebody opposing anything that seems remotely nationalist because they think it will make them 'up da ra' heads.

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 4:43pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

No that's interpretation brought on by desperation.

And that's an interpretation brought on by an unawareness of the political origin of the term "British Isles".

The term is avoided by the vast majority of Irish historians today because it was originally coined as a means to claim ownership over Ireland. That you are in denial of this origin is merely a personal preference, not a factual negation of the political nature of this term.

Fratton Fred · 10-08-2009 4:48pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Or maybe, considering "British Isles" is, as a matter of historical fact, a British nationalist/imperialist term he would prefer to keep it?

why? i stopped referring to Dun Laoghaire as Kingstown years ago, i think i can handle a simple name change, as long as it is relevant.

dlofnep wrote: »

That's a bit of a pointless rant. Like I said, geographical terms are updated all the time. Even countries change their names. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to update the name of these Islands to reflect a more balanced and accurate ownership of the Isles. Jesus, they even updated The British Lions Rugby team to the British and Irish Lions. What's the problem?

because British in the context of the Lions is a reference to the nationality of those taking part.

ejmaztec wrote: »

You've been in Ireland too long, and have caught the persecution complex.:eek:

3 years of Irish oppression (every time I say that i will expand it a bit, so soon it will be 400 years, then 800. On one of the forums on here it was actually quoted as 1000 years. time flies as they say)

dlofnep wrote: »

The idea of naming the Islands to the British & Irish Isles/Irish & British Isles is nuts? It's only nuts because it doesn't suit you. The same way I consider the naming of the Islands as the British Isles to be nuts. We've already pointed out that the Government does not use the term, educational texts do not use it, and large organisations like National Geographic do not use it. It's not about sanity, it's an issue of accuracy.

I see you still haven't answered my question. I'm not singling you out. I'm engaging in a bit of banter with you.

How is it an issue of accuracy? How is British and Irish isles any more accurate than British Isles? Why include Ireland but not the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?

Why is Ireland deserving of a mention and not the other?

come up with a decent, easy name for this group of islands and i might agree with you, but British and Irish isles is crap.

it has nothing to do with imperialism, it is more an objection to political correctness gone mad. I'm quite happy to refer to "These Islands" when talking to someone from Ireland if that's what they want, but lets face it, it's not that important.

humanji · 10-08-2009 4:50pm

dlofnep wrote: »

That's a bit of a pointless rant. Like I said, geographical terms are updated all the time. Even countries change their names. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to update the name of these Islands to reflect a more balanced and accurate ownership of the Isles. Jesus, they even updated The British Lions Rugby team to the British and Irish Lions. What's the problem?

What's the need?

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Well he should say that then. Is that your motivation?

Why should he have to? Do we each have to justify why we post on Boards before we do?

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Really? No body? Did you read the start of this thread at all?

Plus:http://news.google.ie/news?um=1&ned=en_ie&hl=en&q=%27british+isles%27&cf=all&scoring=n

All the news articles from today that use the phrase. That is in addition to 835,000 use for the term on google.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22british+isles%22&meta=lr%3Dlang_de

And that only in the English langauge. Try French, German etc and I am sure there are loads more.

F*ck all doesn't mean none. In the grand scheme of things, 835,000 searches isn't exactly a lot when you consider how many pages are on the internet.

The point you're missing completely is that that only people who care are those who go out of their way to care.

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:51pm

humanji wrote: »

What's the need?

To reflect a more accurate geographical and political persona I'd guess.

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:57pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

because British in the context of the Lions is a reference to the nationality of those taking part.

Opposed to British in the context of ownership of the Islands?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is it an issue of accuracy? How is British and Irish isles any more accurate than British Isles? Why include Ireland but not the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?

Because the Islands do not belong to the British people, they belong to the British & Irish people. The people in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are British Crown dependencies. Ireland is NOT.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why is Ireland deserving of a mention and not the other?

What others? The Isle of Man and Channel Islands are Crown dependancies. Why wouldn't Ireland deserve a mention?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

come up with a decent, easy name for this group of islands and i might agree with you, but British and Irish isles is crap.

Why, because it has the term Irish in it? How about we call them the Irish Isles then?

Fratton Fred · 10-08-2009 4:57pm

dlofnep wrote: »

To reflect a more accurate geographical and political persona I'd guess.

then you would have to include the Isle of Man, Jersey and Gurnsey, they are all seperate political entities.

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 4:57pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

then you would have to include the Isle of Man, Jersey and Gurnsey, they are all seperate political entities.

All British Crown dependencies.

Hola_Bola · 10-08-2009 4:59pm

The North and the Republic of Ireland are a part of the British Isles. The British Isles were here before any Government/political regime controlling them. The Republic of Ireland is geographically within the British Isles but not within the British Government's authority, what is so difficult to understand about that?

Because something is "British", doesn't mean England, Scotland and Wales.

Cookie_Monster · 10-08-2009 5:04pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is it an issue of accuracy? How is British and Irish isles any more accurate than British Isles? Why include Ireland but not the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?

Why is Ireland deserving of a mention and not the other?

come up with a decent, easy name for this group of islands and i might agree with you, but British and Irish isles is crap.

They are the only two states represented in the Island. Ireland owns all the islands off its coast and Britian is made up of all the islands off it coast and the 3 nations within it.

humanji · 10-08-2009 5:07pm

dlofnep wrote: »

To reflect a more accurate geographical and political persona I'd guess.

Call them Western European Islands then? :P

dlofnep · 10-08-2009 5:09pm

humanji wrote: »

Call them Western European Islands then? :P

North-Western! Can't be pissing off them lads off the coast of Portugal.

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 5:11pm

Hola_Bola wrote: »

The North and the Republic of Ireland are a part of the British Isles. The British Isles were here before any Government/political regime controlling them.

In fact "they" weren't. The "British Isles" can only be dated to 1577 as a term. If you can find the term used before then you should contact the Oxford English Dictionary asap.

This debate is about the term, obviously. Trying to claim that the name British Isles is a geographical construct which dates to before the creation of the English and British states is patent, delusional ahistorical nonsense.

Why is this verifiable historical fact so hard for some people to comprehend?

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 5:13pm

Hola_Bola wrote: »

Because something is "British", doesn't mean England, Scotland and Wales.

So, would you like to elaborate on what 'British' means, then?

Yellowblackbird · 10-08-2009 5:14pm

realcam wrote: »

........ you're all the same. Ugly, uneducated, filthy, fornicating drunkards.

The Russian army in Germany in 1945 certainly didn't find the local population ugly. Hey!

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 5:15pm

humanji wrote: »

Call them Western European Islands then? :P

Which is what they have been called in Irish for at least 500 years: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa.

Adamcp898 · 10-08-2009 5:18pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

Which is what they have been called in Irish for at least 500 years: Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa.

featuring Iceland :pac:

But seriously why do people have such a problem with this? We're part of the British Isles so what

Rebelheart · 10-08-2009 5:21pm

Adamcp898 wrote: »

But seriously why do people have such a problem with this? We're part of the British Isles so what

For the same reason they have trouble with people parroting nationalist myths generally, I suppose.

Fratton Fred · 10-08-2009 5:21pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Opposed to British in the context of ownership of the Islands? Because the Islands do not belong to the British people, they belong to the British & Irish people. The people in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are British Crown dependencies. Ireland is NOT.

What others? The Isle of Man and Channel Islands are Crown dependancies. Why wouldn't Ireland deserve a mention?

Why, because it has the term Irish in it? How about we call them the Irish Isles then?

Crown dependancies yes, but not part of Great Britain or the UK.

I don't care about having Irish in there, don't judge me by your own standards.

Clare/Britain

Comments