Saoirse Ronan, Sky News and 'claiming' Irish people as British

Fratton Fred

murpho999 wrote: »

Nobody says that but just because you weren't though in school about things that happened in Ireland then it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The last few hundred years of British reign were very nasty and definitely not good for the majority Catholic population.

You didn't read the thread I responded to then?

mansize

murpho999 wrote: »

Difference is that, as cheesy as it is, they actually might have some connection with Ireland but Saoirse has nothing to do with Britain

What connection does Ed Sheeran have?

Edward Hopper

mansize wrote: »

What connection does Ed Sheeran have?

A Granny doesn't he?

murpho999

mansize wrote: »

What connection does Ed Sheeran have?

Has Irish grandparents.

murpho999

sonofenoch wrote: »

Saoirse Ronan, born in Woodlawn, Bronx, New York City....currently lives in New York city.....so what's all the fuss about this American

Brought up in Ireland, and identifies as Irish, why are people trying to make out she's not Irish.

Now living abroad dictates your nationality?

murpho999

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You didn't read the thread I responded to then?

I did, but your sarcastic response didn't really handle the issue and read more as denial.

Mr. teddywinkles

sonofenoch wrote: »

If we're so offended why are we watching Sky news in the first place? or tuning in to our favorite episodes of Eastenders, Carnation street or watching to see who'll win the xfactor or big brother .....did I mention football? .....it's funny how we all want a little part of Britain but **** don't associate us with it

I must be American so because I watch American films and programmes

Figbiscuithead

He apologised and now I can stop breaking plates and Anger Flash Dancing around my sitting room.

http://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/pic-that-journalist-who-claimed-saoirse-ronan-for-britain-has-apologised/526275

Tea drinker

everlast75 wrote: »

In my view, I ignored it the first few times it happened but I'm getting a bit sick of them doing it now. It has to be on purpose.

A little even more insensitive considering our history and the year that is in it.

I believe we need to send Samuel L Jackson over to explain again to them the errors of their ways, in that intimidating manner that only he can do...

It was HILARIOUS to watch Samuel L Jackson correct some UK presenter for claiming Colin Farrel as British... someone should really dig out a link for that. :-)

txt found:
The screen legend was recently interviewed by Kate Thornton on British
TV about working with Colin Farrell in "S.W.A.T." when
the following
conversation took place.

Kate: What's it like working with Colin, 'cos he is just so hot in the
UK right now.

Samuel: He's pretty hot in the US, too

Kate: Yeah, but he's one of our own!

Samuel: Isn't he from Ireland?

Kate: Yeah, but we claim him 'cos Ireland is beside us.

Samuel: You see that's your problem right there. You British keep
claiming people that don't belong to you. We had that problem in
America too -- it was called slavery.

deepesthole

Figbiscuithead wrote: »

He apologised and now I can stop breaking plates and Anger Flash Dancing around my sitting room.

Phew. I guess it's OK now to admit she's a crap actor and the vast majority of her movies are muck.

Junkyard Tom

Being a thick silly-billy is one thing (probably in the job description for Sky News) defending being a thick silly-billy is quite another.

Tell me how

Junkyard Tom wrote:

Being a thick **** is one thing (probably in the job description for Sky News) defending being a thick **** is quite another.

Can't say you're helping your argument with the profanity...

LordSutch

murpho999 wrote: »

Has Irish grandparents.

Re Skn News; Did he actually say that Saoires Ronan is British? or did he say that she is 'one of ours', in the context that she's from this side of the pond...

The pond being the Atlantic ocean. With America on one side (theirs), and Britain & Ireland on the other (one of ours).

MistyCheese

I think it's a bit pathetic really. Why do some British reporters/ journalists/ interviewers claim Irish people as one of their own? Who are they trying to impress with 'one of our own' talk? "Ooh look how great we are, isn't Paddy MacIrishman doing well in Big Bad America. He's one of our own you know. It's lovely to see a fellow Brit making a mark."

Britain's a big enough player with lots of successful people in realms as diverse as science, sports, arts. Why would the country responsible for Issac Newton, Stephen Hawking, William Shakespeare, David Bowie, Dame Maggie Smith etc feel such an overpowering need to impress that they will claim the success of people who are simply geographically close enough to them.

indioblack

LordSutch wrote: »

Re Skn News; Did he actually say that Saoires Ronan is British? or did he say that she is 'one of ours', in the context that she's from this side of the pond...

The pond being the Atlantic ocean. With America on one side (theirs), and Britain & Ireland on the other (one of ours).

No no, she's one of ours - one of theirs - one of them.
Who the hell is she, anyway?

Junkyard Tom

Tell me how wrote: »

Can't say you're helping your argument with the profanity...

I'm sorry I upset you. I've changed the wording thusly.

Figbiscuithead

LordSutch wrote: »

Re Skn News; Did he actually say that Saoires Ronan is British? or did he say that she is 'one of ours', in the context that she's from this side of the pond...

The pond being the Atlantic ocean. With America on one side (theirs), and Britain & Ireland on the other (one of ours).

Well his further arguing and his insistence that Ireland is in the British Isles would suggest the former.

sonofenoch

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I must be American so because I watch American films and programmes

Too true Bud

xband

They do tend to treat us a bit like that slightly stalker ex who won't take the hint!

Yes it's lovely, but we got divorced in 1921 after a *really* bad marriage.

After a few decades of sulking, snarling at each other and Ireland having briefly gone totally off the deepend and flirted with isolationism and being a relgious maniac, we can now usually have dinner with out throwing plates at each other.

Also, they still won't give back the deeds to the back garden !

Also we have new friends now ... And have joined Tinder or the EU or something.

Iwasfrozen

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'd imagine we'd have been OK.

What's "ok"? Richer or poorer than we are now? I think we can agree had Ireland not been part of the United Kingdom our population would likely be much greater than it is now. English would be our second language and we would be isolated culturally, neither Germanic or Latin. Our population would likely be much higher than now and we would have a harder time attracting FDI.

Iwasfrozen

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Few facts :

Many British are ignorant and stupid. Their schools and media keep them so.

The posters on here who claim the "Irish inferiority thing" for pointing out facts are probably the same type who are obsessed with ww2, tatoos and German beach towels.
In fact, when Americans express pro-Irish views these same British types claim they're pro-IRA or "don't know what they're talking about".

Hence the the British nationalism, anti-EU, anti-immigrant stance.

That a British newsreader saw that an Irish actress was Irish and decided she was British is evidence he's an ignorant twat..... And He decided to drag this along, makes it his fault not ours.

If you think that the British media are aware Fassbender's mother is from Larne, etc, you're an idiot. Doubt they know where Larne is.

Those who claim this is a sky thing? It isn't, the BBC are ignorant aswell. The BBC and their whole 'x is from person from Ireland/America/Sweden, etc and Britain ' is typical British.

Fact is no other country is like them regarding stupidity, jingoism and arrogace right now.

The idea facts only count if Irish celebs make a statement is a bit ridiculous.

The Brits bring these things on themselves when they act like this.

They're well able to declare foreigners or eye-land as thick, they should know their own country.

Stop blaming the Irish.


That said the sky guy is a clearly a knob.
As someone said earlier worse thing is they don't know they're ignorant.

Yeah you lost me here, that's not a fact...

Eugene Norman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No one in the world, ever, suffered as much as the Irish. It's a known fact.

Apparently.

Of course that isn't what I said, but a typically sneering comment.

darkpagandeath

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah you lost me here, that's not a fact...

It did make me lol, Thinking the outrage if someone said something about potatoes and dirt farmers... Some have no sense of Irony at all. :pac::pac::pac:

Fratton Fred

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Of course that isn't what I said, but a typically sneering comment.

I was sneering at your stupid statement, which was ludicrous.

The_Kew_Tour

It's embarrassing seeing Irish people get up in arms about something so small

If only half the effort was towards flood victims, sick people, homeless etc

mansize

Edward Hopper wrote: »

A Granny doesn't he?

The same one as Andy Townsend?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's "ok"? Richer or poorer than we are now? I think we can agree had Ireland not been part of the United Kingdom our population would likely be much greater than it is now. English would be our second language and we would be isolated culturally, neither Germanic or Latin. Our population would likely be much higher than now and we would have a harder time attracting FDI.

Our population would have been larger as we wouldn't have had to suffer through the mass emigration of 19th century caused by incompetence by our colonial overlords.

Larger populations tend to be good for economic development.We wouldn't be as reliant of FDI as we'd have much bigger domestic companies and countries with large populations tend to be more attractive for multinational corporations to invest in.

Eugene Norman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was sneering at your stupid statement, which was ludicrous.

That the west of Ireland was one of the poorest in the world at the time? What would you think poorer? It was a largely over populated subsistence pre capitalist society. De Tocqueville , whom you can start googling now, said it was the poorest place he had visited and he had visited America (including Indian reservations) and poor working class Britain, France and most of Europe.

Edward Hopper

mansize wrote: »

The same one as Andy Townsend?

She's a game bird if that's true!

darkpagandeath

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That the west of Ireland was one of the poorest in the world at the time? What would you think poorer? It was a largely over populated subsistence pre capitalist society. De Tocqueville , whom you can start googling now, said it was the poorest place he had visited and he had visited America (including Indian reservations) and poor working class Britain.

If one French guys said it it's got to be fact. One has heard of Africa and China yes ?

Eugene Norman

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If one French guys said it it's got to be fact. One has heard of Africa and China yes ?

You are still producing the dumbest posts on boards. It boils my piss that I even have to deal with someone of your limited intellect. You are now sneering at De Toqueville.

Yes those places were poor, but a peasants life is a peasants life, under the yoke of British colonialism there was little between peasant life in these pre capitalist societities. If you understand that de Toqueville saw Irish peasants as poorer than the native Americans why would you think the Chinese or Africans poorer. At best it was all equal.

And of course there's the issue of starvation. The famine Irish were clearly poorer than anywhere that wasn't starving (not that British imperialism didn't starve others).

LorMal

Paramite Pie wrote: »

The difference being that virtually all the Irish were in the lower classes.

I doubt 80% of the British population were under economic sanctions, Ireland had virtually no substantial middle class outside of Northern Ireland and parts of Dublin & the South East. The percentage of people in extreme poverty far exceeded the European norm.

We were useless because we started from scratch, with the lowest living standards in the UK by far. Belfast had the UK's highest living standards in the same era, despite having the exact same resources at their disposal.



A very nice city indeed. And had we been allowed to participate in the economy and land ownership much earlier, I'm sure we'd have even more nice cities.

Sorry, just not true. Ireland had a substantial Middle Class and was experiencing a time of substantial economic growth at the time. There was a large divide between rich and poor as there was everywhere at that time.
And we did not 'start from scratch'. We essentially replaced the extant institutions with an Irish version - all of these were already in place and had largely been run and staffed by Irish people anyway. Little changed accept that De Valera started to pursue stupid isolationist economic policies (raising tariffs / economic war etc) which stymied any chance of economic development for decades.
You reference to Belfast is also irrelevant as in 1916 it was part of Ireland and within the union, just like Dublin. It was economically advantaged due to the thriving shipping and linen industries at that time.

Iwasfrozen

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Our population would have been larger as we wouldn't have had to suffer through the mass emigration of 19th century caused by incompetence by our colonial overlords.

Larger populations tend to be good for economic development.We wouldn't be as reliant of FDI as we'd have much bigger domestic companies and countries with large populations tend to be more attractive for multinational corporations to invest in.

Do you think our slums would have been improved or made worse by an increased population? Genuinely curious.

I'm sure Nigeria, India and Bangladesh will take heart in your comment that larger populations are good for economic development. No doubt those countries will beating back the back the MNCs with a stick when those crafty devils get wind of their large domestic markets.

MNCs aren't here to supply the domestic market, they are here for our Angloesque low corporate tax rates, lack of overbearing regulation and our highly educated English speaking workforce.

LorMal

From an article by David Mc Williams -Irish independent 11/11/15...

All this taken together explains how in 1913, on the eve of the Rising, far from being poor, Ireland was actually a rich country - one of the richest in Europe. Income per head was on a par with the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Seventy years after the Rising in 1986, Irish income per head was half the income of the Scandinavians. What happened?

Royal Legend

Ivan Yates could not even pronounce her name properly on the radio last week :eek:

Dirty Dingus McGee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think our slums would have been improved or made worse by an increased population? Genuinely curious.

I'm sure Nigeria, India and Bangladesh will take heart in your comment that larger populations are good for economic development. No doubt those countries will beating back the back the MNC's with a stick when those crafty devils get wind of their large domestic markets.

FDI's aren't here to supply the domestic market, they are here for our Angloesque low corporate tax rates, lack of overbearing regulation and our highly educated English speaking workforce.

You were giving credit to Britain for our population being low.

The reason our population was low was because the country was being run in such an appallingly bad manner.

So basically you were praising Britain for doing a sh1t job of running this country.Our low population was not as a result of Britain trying to help this country it was through incompetence.

Bangladesh and India are not in Europe an are in an underdeveloped part of the world so the comparision is not really justified.

It's ironic though that you've been arguing colonialism was good for Ireland yet then mention Bangaldesh and India as the apparent hell holes we may have turned into without British colonialism.

You're right FDI's aren't here to solely supply the Irish economy however I work for a foreign company where we sell to French and English customer's but don't sell to Irish customers because our population is too small to justify the set up costs involved in selling to Irish customers.

Junkyard Tom

LorMal wrote: »

Sorry, just not true. Ireland had a substantial Middle Class and was experiencing a time of substantial economic growth at the time.

Sure god love you with your self-loathing 'everything was better when we were run from London' bullshit. I pity you. Ireland was essentially a big farm that supplied the murderous British empire. Happy days, huh?

Even if your propaganda was true (Dublin had the highest child mortality rates in Britain and Ireland) did you know that economic conditions improved for slaves in the US in the 19th Century compared with the previous century? Does that make slavery any less reprehensible? Nah, of course it doesn't.

Iwasfrozen

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You were giving credit to Britain for our population being low.

The reason our population was low was because the country was being run in such an appallingly bad manner.

So basically you were praising Britain for doing a sh1t job of running this country.Our low population was not as a result of Britain trying to help this country it was through incompetence.

Bangladesh and India are not in Europe an are in an underdeveloped part of the world so the comparision is not really justified.

It's ironic though that you've been arguing colonialism was good for Ireland yet then mention Bangaldesh and India as the apparent hell holes we may have turned into without British colonialism.

You're right FDI's aren't here to solely supply the Irish economy however I work for a foreign company where we sell to French and English customer's but don't sell to Irish customers because our population is too small to justify the set up costs involved in selling to Irish customers.

I gave credit? Where? I acknowledged our population would be larger if we were never part of the UK.

I agree Bangladesh and India are not in Europe. So what? Do the laws of economic development alter significantly once one moves outside the imaginary borders of Europe?

Once again, it's not the size of the population that's important. The size of the MARKET is important. But you can just ignore me and continue thinking we'd somehow be richer with a larger population if everything else were the same.

Dirty Dingus McGee

LorMal wrote: »

From an article by David Mc Williams -Irish independent 11/11/15...

All this taken together explains how in 1913, on the eve of the Rising, far from being poor, Ireland was actually a rich country - one of the richest in Europe. Income per head was on a par with the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Seventy years after the Rising in 1986, Irish income per head was half the income of the Scandinavians. What happened?

That is because as McWilliams mentioned the Irish Home rule party had the balance of power and effectively were able to get a lot out of the UK precisely because there was a part of Irish people looking out for Irish interests.It wasn't anything benevolent on behalf of Britain.

darkpagandeath

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You are still producing the dumbest posts on boards. It boils my piss that I even have to deal with someone of your limited intellect. You are now sneering at De Toqueville.

Yes those places were poor, but a peasants life is a peasants life, under the yoke of British colonialism there was little between peasant life in these pre capitalist societities. If you understand that de Toqueville saw Irish peasants as poorer than the native Americans why would you think the Chinese or Africans poorer. At best it was all equal.

And of course there's the issue of starvation. The famine Irish were clearly poorer than anywhere that wasn't starving (not that British imperialism didn't starve others).

I'm not the one spouting nonsense. Clearly Ireland was poor at the time. But places in China and Africa at the time were worse. Most of the east was pretty feudal at that time. Japan was pretty terrible until the mid 1800s.

darkpagandeath

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Sure god love you with your self-loathing 'everything was better when we were run from London' bullshit. I pity you. Ireland was essentially a big farm that supplied the murderous British empire. Happy days, huh?

Even if your propaganda was true (Dublin had the highest child mortality rates in Britain and Ireland) did you know that economic conditions improved for slaves in the US in the 19th Century compared with the previous century? Does that make slavery any less reprehensible? Nah, of course it doesn't.

Plenty of Irish slaves in the Old USA and were treated far worse than black slaves.

Iwasfrozen

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm not the one spouting nonsense. Clearly Ireland was poor at the time. But places in China and Africa at the time were worse. Most of the east was pretty feudal at that time. Japan was pretty terrible until the mid 1800s.

The Irish had as bad as the aboriginal Australians I tells ya. We should offer out our hands in solidarity to those poor wretchs who almost had it as bad as us.

darkpagandeath

languagenerd wrote: »

Does not wanting to be called British have to mean hating Britain?

I don't hate Britain or the British people - I lived there for a while and have good friends from all of its regions - but I would still correct someone who called me British. That's not because I find it insulting, but just because I am not

I would not be losing sleep over it and taking to the internet in outrage. Simply correct the person and move on with my life. Been called far worse just up in the thread. :pac:

languagenerd

Does not wanting to be called British have to mean hating Britain?

I don't hate Britain or the British people - I lived there for a while and have good friends from all of its regions - but I would still correct someone who called me British. That's not because I find it insulting, but just because I am not British any more than I am Spanish or Chinese or Australian. I am Irish because this is where I grew up, this is where my family is from and it's the customs here that partially shaped my personality. I'm not crazily patriotic, but I am just not British.

Even if British rule had wonderful consequences for the Irish (which it didn't), it would still be factually incorrect to call an Irish person British, and, to an extent, it is disrespectful to ignore their cultural background by saying it's the same thing. It's not "typical Irish hating Britain while still watching their TV shows" to point out that the media are wrong. I think people of most nationalities would react the same way to being called the wrong one.

Again, I'm not outraged on Saoirse Ronan's behalf or claiming her success is "ours", but I do wish that the British (and American) media would do a bit more research and stop adding to the general confusion about Ireland.

riffmongous

Royal Legend wrote: »

Ivan Yates could not even pronounce her name properly on the radio last week :eek:

On wiki it says she pronounces it different herself, more sersha then seersha

The J Stands for Jay

Billy86 wrote: »

We followed this up with some of the worst looking architecture in the western world, and such wonderful areas as the Ballymun high rise flats.

Nope, no buildings looking like that were built anywhere else in Europe at that time and definitely.not in the UK.

funnights74

She didn't win at the Golden Globes

so she's Irish again, until the Oscars.:)

The J Stands for Jay

mansize wrote: »

What connection does Ed Sheeran have?

Whatever it is, it's enough for him to record and Irish language version of one of his songs. Never ****ing off the radio.

LordSutch

Anyone remember a few years ago when on a visit to Britain, the President was going around handing out Certificates of Irishness.

Famous runner Seb Coe was given one by Michael D, as were a number of other famous people from Britain & abroad, (Muhammad Ali, Barak Obama, Tom Cruise, etc) presumably because one of their ancesters came from Ireland? The whole thing looked very awkward and embarassing, as unsuspecting celebs were pounced on and handed their Certificate of Irishness.
http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2012/02/28-week/images/news-latest.jpg

Ah sure he's one of ours now

speedboatchase

We look so small time as a country when we lose our sh*t about this stuff. We're quite happy to claim Daniel Day-Lewis and the 1990 Irish football team for ourselves, but heaven forbid some non-entity at Sky act like an eejit over an actress most English people wouldn't even recognise, or whose name they couldn't pronounce.

Saoirse is a fantastic actress, and I'm delighted she's being honoured for Brooklyn. If people mess up, correct them and move on. Can we just leave it at that and stop being so predictable in our outrage?