How long before Irish reunification?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If somebody tells you they 'identify' as British and you say their 'identity' is Irish that is offensive and vice versa.

Stating were they were BORN is not offensive and it cannot be, because it is a fact of geography (unless you can tell us that they were not born on an island called Ireland)

The type of person who takes offence at that will also take offence at having to look at the Irish language and demean anything 'Irish' because they are so insecure they think it weakens their identity.

Is it offensive to say MON is British becuase she was born in the UK? Given that nationality definition also says your nation of Birth.

The Rape of Lucretia

jh79 wrote: »

Is it offensive to say MON is British becuase she was born in the UK? Given that nationality definition also says your nation of Birth.

It is. It being a fact does not make it inoffensive. If a man identifying as female wishes to be described a woman, then we would call them a women. Not to do so, whatever the biological science, would be offensive to that person. They are indeed a man - but we would describe say they are a woman simply because it is their wish that we do so.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why is calling someone born on the island of Ireland - Irish, insensitive if it is factually correct?

so technically then, anyone born in Ireland is actually British, because they are born in the British Isles.

glad we got that one straight.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

so technically then, anyone born in Ireland is actually British, because they are born in the British Isles.

glad we got that one straight.

Even the British don't use that term officially. And we don't recognise it. ~

Read your GFA for instance and the agreed term is 'these islands'.

The Empire wants it possessive phrase back Aegir.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Even the British don't use that term officially. And we don't recognise it. ~

Read your GFA for instance and the agreed term is 'these islands'.

The Empire wants it possessive phrase back Aegir.

Whether recognised or used officially isnt the point though is it?
The geographical description British Isles undeniably exists, so as you agree that describing people according to the geography of their origin is reasonable, it is so whether from Ireland, therefore Irish, or from the British Isles, therefore British. Which I think is just a restatement of you explanations earlier.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Whether recognised or used officially isnt the point though is it?
The geographical description British Isles undeniably exists, so as you agree that describing people according to the geography of their origin is reasonable, it is so whether from Ireland, therefore Irish, or from the British Isles, therefore British. Which I think is just a restatement of you explanations earlier.

We don't recognise it and as far as I am concerned it is as redundant as Caledonia is for Scotland.
The British don't even try to use it officially anymore.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We don't recognise it and as far as I am concerned it is as redundant as Caledonia is for Scotland.
The British don't even try to use it officially anymore.

Whether we recognise it or the British try to use it officially anymore isnt the point though is it?
The geographical description British Isles undeniably exists, so as you agree that describing people according to the geography of their origin is reasonable, it is so whether from Ireland, therefore Irish, or from the British Isles, therefore British.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is defining an identity for someone by stating where they were born. It is totally insecure nonsense to try to live in denial of a simple geographical fact.

I actually don't know a single person in the north (and I live smack on the border and I am in the north most days of the week and deal with people who identify as British all the time) who would have a problem with being called an Irish person because they were born in Ireland. Not one.


I think one person who says they are a Unionist here took issue with it.

Yes, Francie, I have to agree with you, we were all born on the British Isles, so we are British.

We have been over this many times and you still repeat this nonsense.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Whether we recognise it or the British try to use it officially anymore isnt the point though is it?
The geographical description British Isles undeniably exists, so as you agree that describing people according to the geography of their origin is reasonable, it is so whether from Ireland, therefore Irish, or from the British Isles, therefore British.

It would be as archaic as calling Scots 'Caledonians'...nobody does it. But knock yourself out if it shoehorns the 'British' thing in there for you, you are clearly desperate to make some connection.
Why not just apply for citizenship, get it out of your system?

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It would be as archaic as calling Scots 'Caledonians'...nobody does it. But knock yourself out if it shoehorns the 'British' thing in there for you, you are clearly desperate to make some connection.
Why not just apply for citizenship, get it out of your system?

Caledonia is indeed archaic. So no one uses it other than romantically or for deliberately archaic effect.
'The British Isles' and 'British' are terms fully in contemporary usage. As you say, if you are from one of the British Isles, it is appropriate to term oneself British.
There is no modern geographical location of Caledonia, so its use, in contrast, is, archaic.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We don't recognise it and as far as I am concerned it is as redundant as Caledonia is for Scotland.
The British don't even try to use it officially anymore.

And the British people living in the North don't recognise that they are Irish just because you believe that they are.

The geographical argument that you keep putting forward is blatantly sectarian.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Caledonia is indeed archaic. So no one uses it other than romantically or for deliberately archaic effect.
'The British Isles' and 'British' are terms fully in contemporary usage. As you say, if you are from one of the British Isles, it is appropriate to term oneself British.
There is no modern geographical location of Caledonia, so its use, in contrast, is, archaic.

As I said: Knock yourself out on that one.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

And the British people living in the North don't recognise that they are Irish just because you believe that they are.

The geographical argument that you keep putting forward is blatantly sectarian.

They choose to identify as British. Which is perfectly fine.

What is it you are afraid of here? Who exactly is getting offended?

David Trimble even recognised that outside Ireland he was seen as Irish.

David Trimble wrote:

Many Englishmen… seem unable to distinguish between the native inhabitants of Ireland – to him they are all “paddies”.”

Brian Faulkner Ulster Unionist:

They have no right to the title Ireland, a name of which we are just as proud as they.

droidman123

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Caledonia is indeed archaic. So no one uses it other than romantically or for deliberately archaic effect.
'The British Isles' and 'British' are terms fully in contemporary usage. As you say, if you are from one of the British Isles, it is appropriate to term oneself British.
There is no modern geographical location of Caledonia, so its use, in contrast, is, archaic.

You have been using that term "british isles" across multiple forums many times,its clearly to wind people up,but more importantly is disrespectful to the many men and women of this country who helped rid us of the vermin that occupied us and committed so many atrocities here.you know as well as i do that its an empirical term and i am asking you now,as i have before,to stop using the term,i personally find it offensive apart from anything else

The Rape of Lucretia

droidman123 wrote: »

the vermin that occupied us

Well if that aint offensive...

droidman123

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well if that aint offensive...

Its meant to be,after what they did here,whats your point?

blanch152

droidman123 wrote: »

You have been using that term "british isles" across multiple forums many times,its clearly to wind people up,but more importantly is disrespectful to the many men and women of this country who helped rid us of the vermin that occupied us and committed so many atrocities here.you know as well as i do that its an empirical term and i am asking you now,as i have before,to stop using the term,i personally find it offensive apart from anything else

A new low in sectarian and racist bigotry on this thread.

However offensive you might find the term British Isles, as Francie might say, it is a geographical fact.

droidman123

blanch152 wrote: »

A new low in sectarian and racist bigotry on this thread.

However offensive you might find the term British Isles, as Francie might say, it is a geographical fact.

No its not,its an empirical term,i dont,and have never lived in the british isles

droidman123

blanch152 wrote: »

A new low in sectarian and racist bigotry on this thread.

However offensive you might find the term British Isles, as Francie might say, it is a geographical fact.

How is calling a nation who committed so many atrocities here vermin secterian or racist?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A new low in sectarian and racist bigotry on this thread.

However offensive you might find the term British Isles, as Francie might say, it is a geographical fact.

It only exists in the mind of a British Imperialist or one of it's apologists. It was a possessive name and is defunct now. Not even the British government tried to use it in the GFA.

Go away and think of some other way to shoehorn the word British in there blanch. I'm laughing heartily here at the desperation.

The Rape of Lucretia

droidman123 wrote: »

No its not,its an empirical term,i dont,and have never lived in the british isles

Well, anyone can insist black is white, but that suggests they arent sane.

"The British Isles are a group of islands in the North Atlantic off the north-western coast of continental Europe that consist of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Hebrides and over six thousand smaller isles.[8] They have a total area of about 315,159 km2[5] and a combined population of almost 72 million, and include two sovereign states, the Republic of Ireland (which covers roughly five-sixths of Ireland),[9] and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

If you have lived on one of the islands described above, you have lived in the British Isles.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It only exists in the mind of a British Imperialist or one of it's apologists. It was a possessive name and is defunct now. Not even the British government tried to use it in the GFA.

Whether the British govt tried to use it in the GFA or not isnt the point though is it ?

"The British Isles are a group of islands in the North Atlantic off the north-western coast of continental Europe that consist of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Hebrides and over six thousand smaller isles.[8] They have a total area of about 315,159 km2[5] and a combined population of almost 72 million, and include two sovereign states, the Republic of Ireland (which covers roughly five-sixths of Ireland),[9] and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

And as you have explained before, it is correct to describe someone from that island region, British.

trashcan

janfebmar wrote: »

It is Northern Ireland we are talking about trashcan, do pay attention. People from there can call themselves both Irish and British, or indeed Irish or British , if they so wish.
In the same way , people from Hawaii can call themselves Hawaiian and/or American. They can have an American passport, and if asked their nationality (on say a bird watching trip to Columbia lol) they can simply say "American" to differentiate themselves from perhaps Japanese or French or Russian people there.

Unfortunately for you I did pay attention to what you wrote, perhaps more than you did ?

And still with the Hawaiian noises! Sheesh. How many times ? Hawaii is one of the 50 Staes of the USA, it is intrinsically part of the USA. They can call themselves Hawaiians, just as someone from Texas can call themselves Texan. The difference is that the UKs full title is United Kingdon of Great Btirain and Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland was prt of Britain then the and wouldn't be there. How are you still not getting this. Anyway, I won't be responding to ny more of your nonsense.

BTW interesting article in the Times today about the rise in applications for Irish passports form the North, and the fall in applications for U.K Passports. Interesting not because I think it means we're heading for a United Ireland next week, or next month, but Sammy Wilson is quoted as saying many of his constituents have applied for Irish passports, and he has even advised some people to do so. Now I'm sure Sammys voters won't be voting for a UI any time soon, but they don't seem to have any problem embracing their Irish identity - which is kind of where we came in I think.

blanch152

20-30 years

blanch152 wrote: »

However offensive you might find the term British Isles... it is a geographical fact.

Eh, a term - which in the case of "British Isles" can only be dated in the English language to the English imperialist John Dee claiming Ireland for the English crown in 1577 - cannot be a 'geographical fact'.

FrancieBrady

trashcan wrote: »

Unfortunately for you I did pay attention to what you wrote, perhaps more than you did ?

And still with the Hawaiian noises! Sheesh. How many times ? Hawaii is one of the 50 Staes of the USA, it is intrinsically part of the USA. They can call themselves Hawaiians, just as someone from Texas can call themselves Texan. The difference is that the UKs full title is United Kingdon of Great Btirain and Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland was prt of Britain then the and wouldn't be there. How are you still not getting this. Anyway, I won't be responding to ny more of your nonsense.

BTW interesting article in the Times today about the rise in applications for Irish passports form the North, and the fall in applications for U.K Passports. Interesting not because I think it means we're heading for a United Ireland next week, or next month, but Sammy Wilson is quoted as saying many of his constituents have applied for Irish passports, and he has even advised some people to do so. Now I'm sure Sammys voters won't be voting for a UI any time soon, but they don't seem to have any problem embracing their Irish identity - which is kind of where we came in I think.

My point exactly...who exactly is getting offended here? Seems to be one Unionist and a smattering of the usual partitionists getting offended on others behalf.

droidman123

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Whether the British govt tried to use it in the GFA or not isnt the point though is it ?

"The British Isles are a group of islands in the North Atlantic off the north-western coast of continental Europe that consist of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Hebrides and over six thousand smaller isles.[8] They have a total area of about 315,159 km2[5] and a combined population of almost 72 million, and include two sovereign states, the Republic of Ireland (which covers roughly five-sixths of Ireland),[9] and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

And as you have explained before, it is correct to describe someone from that island region, British.

Just keep posting nonsense,its becoming entertaining at this stage

janfebmar

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, a term - which in the case of "British Isles" can only be dated in the English language to the English imperialist John Dee claiming Ireland for the English crown in 1577 ...

For the past hundreds of years ask any geologist or geographer anywhere in the world where "the British Isles" are and they will know instantly. It is a geographic term.

"A geographic term for all islands in the archipelago. Includes the islands of Great Britain, the islands of Ireland, and the Isle of Man."

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

For the past hundreds of years ask any geologist or geographer anywhere in the world where "the British Isles" are and they will know instantly. It is a geographic term.

"A geographic term for all islands in the archipelago. Includes the islands of Great Britain, the islands of Ireland, and the Isle of Man."

Ask a cartographer: Here is an up to date map...no British Isles...it is defunct.

Only those harking back to and hankering for Empire days use it.

Cute to see all you partitionists so desperate to get using it too.

https://www.mapsofworld.com/united-kingdom/

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ask a cartographer: Here is an up to date map...no British Isles...it is defunct.

Only those harking back to and hankering for Empire days use it.

Cute to see all you partitionists so desperate to get using it too.

https://www.mapsofworld.com/united-kingdom/

That is a map of the United Kingdom you googled there Francie.

Not the brightest, are you?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

That is a map of the United Kingdom you googled there Francie.

Not the brightest, are you?

You try it. Click on Ireland, you get Ireland alone. Because it is a separate island!