Clare/Britain

Hola_Bola

Rebelheart wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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

Look, if you pick up an Atlas, it will always state that we are within the British Isles, I don't understand why the term "British" must connect us with England (forget Scotland and Wales for 1 second). Surely, a professional journalist would never make that mistake but the fact remains that Ireland are always named with the British Isles but not with the political structure of Britain.

For example, there are several territories within American area's but are not a part of the 50 official States. They use their own currency and Government and are completely independent.

I don't know why people must connect the term "British = Queen". It's simply not true.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

British Crown Dependencies. Ireland is not, and therefore - They should be the Irish & British Isles. You asked why Ireland should get special treatment. It's not special treatment. Ireland is not British, nor apart of Britain, nor is it's Islands. Why should we be thrown into the British Collective?

Euro_Kraut

humanji wrote: »

F*ck all doesn't mean none.

I was replying to you stating this at 16:22 -

That's why there's no reason to change the name, nobody uses it

You were incorrect. I pointed that out to you. No need to thank me. I know you'd do the same for me.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

British Crown Dependencies. Ireland is not, and therefore - They should be the Irish & British Isles.

that's just politicising it. it is a geographic name and you want to turn it into a political one.

Where is Britain?

do you have an identity crisis?

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

do you have an identity crisis?

No, but it appears you do.

Adamcp898

Rebelheart wrote: »

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

Euro_Kraut

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Wait are you saying now that don't care either way? You are happy with both The British Isles and the British & Irish Isles?

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

No, but it appears you do.

I know who and what I am. i don't feel the need to constantly prove it by shouting my nationality from the roof tops, or speaking better "English" than other people or only playing "English" sports. or, for that matter, claiming that people who do not do the same as me are "Less English" or have been brain washed by imperialism.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know who and what I am. i don't feel the need to constantly prove it by shouting my nationality from the roof tops, or speaking better "English" than other people or only playing "English" sports. or, for that matter, claiming that people who do not do the same as me are "Less English" or have been brain washed by imperialism.

Sure..

Rebelheart

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Like your own claim that Ireland is in something British nationalists term the "British Isles". In origin and use the term is part of the myth-making of the British nationalist tradition. This basic fact should not need to be spelled out.

Fratton Fred

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Wait are you saying now that don't care either way? You are happy with both The British Isles and the British & Irish Isles?

sshhh, don't tell Dlofnep!!;)

British Isles is not ideal, but I prefer it to British and Irish Isles, too PC.

If anyone can come up with a name that rolls off the tongue and describes our geographic location better, without any political connotations, then let me know.

btw, I always thought British Isles referred to the Islands off the coast of Brittany and everyone here was a Briton derived from Bretaigne.

Oh well.

kraggy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

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.

Because England, Scotland and Wales are part of Britain. Ireland and Northern Ireland are not however. Northern Ireland might be part of the United Kingdom, but it's not British.

So Fratton Fred, you go on calling it the British Isles, we won't. Well not anyone I know anyway.

IIMII

British Isles.. :rolleyes:

Ah, the Grand Oul' Dame Aul Britannia still loves us. Is she can't lay claim to us politically, she'll get us geographically.

She even calls herself our mainland, and features us in her flag.. Bless

Fratton Fred

kraggy wrote: »

Because England, Scotland and Wales are part of Britain. Ireland and Northern Ireland are not however. Northern Ireland might be part of the United Kingdom, but it's not British.

So Fratton Fred, you go on calling it the British Isles, we won't. Well not anyone I know anyway.

Actually, England, Scotland and Wales are part of Great Britain. So it should therefore be the Great British and Irish Isles, but you call it what you like.

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

btw, I always thought British Isles referred to the Islands off the coast of Brittany and everyone here was a Briton derived from Bretaigne.

Oh well.

Actually, I thought Brittany was named after refugees from Britain the legged it when the English invaded. The Irish claim ancestry from the Spanish, the English are Germans, and the Welsh and the Scottish are... well, not sure actually. Britons in the case of the Welsh and I suppose the Scots after being named after the Irish were tagged with the Briton tag too.

Either way, there is more than the sea that separates the Irish and the English. Not that the amourous English ever tire of their tough love infatuation with Ireland

MarkR

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

British and Irish Ilses

is what I thought it was these days?

The term "British Isles" implies UK ownership whether actual or not and I for one don't like it.

I'd always wondered about the Canary Islands...

Rebelheart

IIMII wrote: »

British Isles.. :rolleyes:

Ah, the Grand Oul' Dame Aul Britannia still loves us. Is she can't lay claim to us politically, she'll get us geographically.

She even calls herself our mainland, and features us in her flag.. Bless

How true. The "mainland" indeed - the most delusional islanders on the planet. Roll on the European Union and Britain's real mainland. Nothing like a bit of perspective.

IIMII

MarkR wrote: »

I'd always wondered about the Canary Islands...

Yeah, halfway down the coast of Africa as they are. They are like the Spanish version of Gibralter.

Adamcp898

Rebelheart wrote: »

Like your own claim that Ireland is in something British nationalists term the "British Isles". In origin and use the term is part of the myth-making of the British nationalist tradition. This basic fact should not need to be spelled out.

I thought you were referring to Irish nationalists in your post not British nationalists.

I don't really care enough to get into a discussion about it tbh I just don't see the why people get so annoyed by it, nobody's trying to insult anybody by using it

Rebelheart

Adamcp898 wrote: »

I thought you were referring to Irish nationalists in your post not British nationalists.

I don't really care enough to get into a discussion about it tbh I just don't see the why people get so annoyed by it, nobody's trying to insult anybody by using it

Fair enough. That assumption is much of my point: if you oppose the term "British Isles" certain people assume you are a nationalist, and nationalist could only mean Irish nationalist, it seems. However, the reality that the first recorded use of this term is by a British imperialist named John Dee as he attempted to lay a claim by the English state to Ireland testifies that this term is a British nationalist one in its very origin.

Pay a trip over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles and you'll see plenty of British nationalists defend the term.

mike65

Disgusted of Duberlin Towen

has to be considered a failed thread (10 posts)

Infrastucture gets "on the one road"

Adamcp898

Rebelheart wrote: »

Fair enough. That assumption is much of my point: if you oppose the term "British Isles" certain people assume you are a nationalist, and nationalist could only mean Irish nationalist, it seems. However, the reality that the first recorded use of this term is by a British imperialist named John Dee as he attempted to lay a claim by the English state to Ireland testifies that this term is a British nationalist one in its very origin.

Pay a trip over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles and you'll see plenty of British nationalists defend the term.

The political description of someone as a nationalist does not hold any affinity to any particular nationality, the term has been used in relation to a number of countries and their people.

I assumed you were talking about Irish nationalists because I assume that you are Irish, nothing more nothing less. I'm not saying you're a nationalist I'm just saying when an Irish person talks about nationalism I assume they're talking about Irish nationalism.

An Fear Aniar

This is pathetic.

.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

How true. The "mainland" indeed - the most delusional islanders on the planet. Roll on the European Union and Britain's real mainland. Nothing like a bit of perspective.

Priceless.

macy9

The term British Isles makes zero sense.

We are not an isle of Britain.

Plain and simple.

Its moronic and leads to the confusion foreigners/tourists have when understanding our geography.

Quint

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.

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.

Seems that you decide why places were given their name. Maybe you should do a tour of ireland and change any names place names you think were given to us by Great Britain for the wrong reasons?

Someone earlier mentioned on numerous occasions that National Geographic doesn't use the phrase British Isles.
Seems they do!
This looks great too

Rebelheart

Quint wrote: »

Seems that you decide why places were given their name.

Alternatively, I might just have read substantially more Irish history than you; the fact that you, against all available historical facts, are implicitly denying that the term British Isles does not have its origins in British imperialist claims to Ireland would support this interpretation.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Priceless.

Indeed it is.

Rebelheart

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's a geographical term, nothing to do with politics.

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

This is pathetic.

How apt.

grenache

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's a geographical term, nothing to do with politics.

It has everything to do with politics. Since it was created over 400 years ago when the island of Ireland was part of the British Empire. Therefore Ireland in that time could be correctly referred to as part of the 'British Isles'. The 26 counties are no longer part of the British Empire so to refer to any part of the Republic of Ireland as 'British this' or 'British that' is both politically and geographically incorrect. People who refer to the 26 counties as part of the British Isles are both lazy and out-of-date geographers.

Quint

Rebelheart wrote: »

Alternatively, I might just have read substantially more Irish history than you; the fact that you, against all available historical facts, are implicitly denying that the term British Isles does not have its origins in British imperialist claims to Ireland would support this interpretation.

Well, considering your historical knowledge is all from Wikipedia and stuff you made up yourself to suit your hatred of Britain, I'd be surprised.
And as pointed out before, if you want to go to the origins of the name, the Romans referred to the whole archipelago as Britannia, the early name for Britain. So you're wrong about that too.

Feathers

IIMII wrote: »

British Isles.. :rolleyes:

Ah, the Grand Oul' Dame Aul Britannia still loves us. Is she can't lay claim to us politically, she'll get us geographically.

She even calls herself our mainland, and features us in her flag.. Bless

Surely if you're going to get wound up about anything, this would make more sense? The Royal Coat of Arms of Britain still features the Irish Harp - which you could say means that when the Queen acts symbolically, she's doing so as a monarch over Ireland - otherwise, why hasn't our national emblem been removed?

On top of this - within our own country, taking Dublin - we've a George's St, William St, Lord Edward St, King's Inns, Wellington Quay (Wellington Monument!), Victoria Quay, Mary St, Henry St.... Could go on. & that's just Dublin.

Surely if we're that hung up over this national identity of not being attached to Britain, we should start internally? I don't see anyone complaining about these.

& as for the argument of the British Isles being a term derived in 1500s - it might have first been used in English then, but that doesn't mean it was coined then. You can trace the use of the term "Britain" to describe the British Isles back to some of the earliest historians & geographers we have access to (Pliny/Strabo etc.) in their venacular language

entropi

ToTheSea: wrote: »

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

Geographically they can suck on my left one tbh...Co. Clare is in IRELAND, it was IRISH waters the fish was caught in, so i think they should get their story straight and stop trying to prop up the "empire". Face it lads its long gone and thankfully wont be back:)

MarkR

Lads, if pirates landed tomorrow and ran up a jolly roger outside the dail and buckingham palace, we'd all still be in the british isles. It has nothing to do with nations or states. Then again, this has already been said and ignored. I just wanted to talk about pirates a bit.

Cool Mo D

Yes, it is a political name. It's not a big deal, and I don't get upset or correct anyone if someone says it, although I don't use it myself.

The Romans wrote about the 'Pretannic' isles, however it's not clear if they included Ireland in that. The term was never widely used, and fell out of use in the intervening years.

The phrase "British Isles" came into being as an English expression after the Act of Union in 1801, and it was an explicit move to link Britain and Ireland as a common area, with a shared history, geography and heritage. This is also where the idea of a Ireland and the UK being linked from a shared Celtic heritage, despite the fact that there never was a large influx of Celts into Ireland. It is an outdated term, and it has fallen out of use almost entirely in Ireland, and is on the way out in the UK.

Rebelheart

Quint wrote: »

Well, considering your historical knowledge is ... stuff you made up yourself to suit your hatred of Britain.

And your evidence for this nonsense is what, precisely?


Again, show us evidence of the term "British Isles" being used before the year 1577. In the meantime stop projecting your own evident tendencies to "make stuff up" on to posters who don't have to make stuff up.

senordingdong

Those who founded the State discarded the term.
As far as I'm concerned, that's where the term ended.

And let's not forget that when the 'Brits' covered the bombings in Mumbai, they continued the refer to it as Bombay.
That says it all.

Rebelheart

MarkR wrote: »

Lads, if pirates landed tomorrow and ran up a jolly roger outside the dail and buckingham palace, we'd all still be in the british isles. It has nothing to do with nations or states. Then again, this has already been said and ignored. I just wanted to talk about pirates a bit.

Em, No. We'd still be in the geographical place we are in today. It is humans of a distinct political outlook and with a distinct political agenda who put the name "British Isles" on this archipelago. In this case, the earliest record of the term "British Isles" can only be dated to the British imperialist John Dee who, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, used it in his Perfect Arte of Navigation in1577.

The term cannot be dated before that.

ChocolateSauce

grenache wrote: »

It has everything to do with politics. Since it was created over 400 years ago when the island of Ireland was part of the British Empire. Therefore Ireland in that time could be correctly referred to as part of the 'British Isles'. The 26 counties are no longer part of the British Empire so to refer to any part of the Republic of Ireland as 'British this' or 'British that' is both politically and geographically incorrect. People who refer to the 26 counties as part of the British Isles are both lazy and out-of-date geographers.

Wow, you really don't know anything about history, you? Britain only came into existence in the early 18th century, about 300 years ago.

I'll state it again for all the people here are are both ignorant of history, geography and are also highly sensitive: The term "Britain" predates the country of Britain by several hundred years, and was used since the middle ages to describe the British mainland and all the islands around it, including Ireland. When Scotland and England united in 1717, they chose the name Britain for the new country because that was the name of the geographical location which those countries occupied.

Cool Mo D

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Wow, you really don't know anything about history, you? Britain only came into existence in the early 18th century, about 300 years ago.

I'll state it again for all the people here are are both ignorant of history, geography and are also highly sensitive: The term "Britain" predates the country of Britain by several hundred years, and was used since the middle ages to describe the British mainland and all the islands around it, including Ireland. When Scotland and England united in 1717, they chose the name Britain for the new country because that was the name of the geographical location which those countries occupied.

No, that's complete rubbish. Can you back up this with any evidence? And Britain isn't a country - it's an island, with 3 countries on of it, that make up the majority of the UK.

Rebelheart

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Wow, you really don't know anything about history, you? Britain only came into existence in the early 18th century, about 300 years ago.

Actually, the ideological origins of the British Empire are in the sixteenth century, not the eighteenth century. One of the most prominent of these ideologists was the sixteenth-century imperialist John Dee. Dee is credited with being the first to use the name "British Empire" as well as "British Isles". The eighteenth century, in contrast, is credited with being the origin of the "Second British Empire".

http://tinyurl.com/mhv9th

(Nicholas Canny, 'The Origins of Empire: An Introduction')

Rebelheart

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'll state it again for all the people here are are both ignorant of history, geography and are also highly sensitive: The term "Britain" predates the country of Britain by several hundred years, and was used since the middle ages to describe the British mainland and all the islands around it, including Ireland. When Scotland and England united in 1717, they chose the name Britain for the new country because that was the name of the geographical location which those countries occupied.

1. Your source for "Britain" being used since the medieval period is what, exactly?

2. Your claim that the term "British Isles" can be dated to the medieval period rests on what historical source, precisely?

3. Scotland and England were not "united in 1717". They were united in 1707 as the Kingdom of Great Britain, while the crowns of England and Scotland were united in 1603.

4. Thanks for the lecture to those of us who are allegedly "ignorant of history" but I think I'll give it a miss next time.

LordSutch

I think that the geographical term 'British Isles' is perctly acceptable when refering to this little group of islands situated off the coast of Brittany (when use in the correct context)! but what really irks me is the use of 'These islands' as used by Pat the plank Kenny, who was actually pulled-up by a radio listener a year or two ago, because there was some confusion about whether the ensuing conversation refered to those islands (New Zealand) or 'These islands' meaning the British isles. > Mr kenny refuses to utter the words british isles!

The term 'British isles' works perfectly well for nearly everything, except politics!

grenache

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Wow, you really don't know anything about history, you? Britain only came into existence in the early 18th century, about 300 years ago.

I'll state it again for all the people here are are both ignorant of history, geography and are also highly sensitive: The term "Britain" predates the country of Britain by several hundred years, and was used since the middle ages to describe the British mainland and all the islands around it, including Ireland. When Scotland and England united in 1717, they chose the name Britain for the new country because that was the name of the geographical location which those countries occupied.

and this relates to the Republic of Ireland being incorrectly labelled as part of the British Isles how exactly?


You are confusing the British Empire with the United Kingdom. Ireland was a part of the Empire years before it was brought into the UK. The 400 years i was referring to was the length of time the term 'British Isles' (not 'Britain') had been in use for. And if you had read my post correctly you would have understood that.


Thanks for the factually incorrect history lecture too. The irony of your post is truly amazing.