How long before Irish reunification?

blanch152

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 - cannot be a 'geographical fact'.

Might as well call this island Hibernia then.

blanch152

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/

Plenty of maps of the British Isles available.

https://www.themaparchive.com/the-british-isles-c-1250.html

And here is one from 2014:

https://www.map-sales.com/sales/panorama-wall-map-british-isles.html

And another one:

https://www.atlasdigitalmaps.com/special-offers-2/british-isles/digital-vector-british-isles-uk-4m-scale-medium-relief-map-conical-projection.html


How many do you want before you drop this ridiculous charade?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Plenty of maps of the British Isles available.

https://www.themaparchive.com/the-british-isles-c-1250.html

And here is one from 2014:

https://www.map-sales.com/sales/panorama-wall-map-british-isles.html

And another one:

https://www.atlasdigitalmaps.com/special-offers-2/british-isles/digital-vector-british-isles-uk-4m-scale-medium-relief-map-conical-projection.html


How many do you want before you drop this ridiculous charade?

You claim we are British because of an archaic term and I am the one engaging in charades? :D:D

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You claim we are British because of an archaic term and I am the one engaging in charades? :D:D

No, I am saying that if one adopts the nonsensical sectarian bigoted approach of geography determining nationality, as proposed by you, then we are all British. It is the absurd outcome of your deluded idea.

Just drop the geographical nonsense.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Plenty of maps of the British Isles available.

https://www.themaparchive.com/the-british-isles-c-1250.html

And here is one from 2014:

https://www.map-sales.com/sales/panorama-wall-map-british-isles.html

And another one:

https://www.atlasdigitalmaps.com/special-offers-2/british-isles/digital-vector-british-isles-uk-4m-scale-medium-relief-map-conical-projection.html

How many do you want before you drop this ridiculous charade?

:D:D I just noticed there that the only one of those maps with the British Isles actually marked on it is the one of 1270.

Classic fail there Blanch :D:D

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I am saying that if one adopts the nonsensical sectarian bigoted approach of geography determining nationality, as proposed by you, then we are all British. It is the absurd outcome of your deluded idea.

Just drop the geographical nonsense.

So what do you call those people born on the island of Ireland before they can 'identify as British or Irish'?

Don't be afraid, nobody is going to get offended except those who cannot bear to look at the Irish language even on a manhole cover.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what do you call those people born on the island of Ireland before they can 'identify as British or Irish'?

The earliest settlers arrived around 7,000 BC in the Mesolithic or middle stone-age period, across the narrow strait from Britain. They were British or descendants of British people. All of which has nothing got to do with the fact the geographic terms for these islands is the British Isles.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The earliest settlers arrived around 7,000 BC in the Mesolithic or middle stone-age period, across the narrow strait from Britain. They were British or descendants of British people. All of which has nothing got to do with the fact the geographic terms for these islands is the British Isles.

No, it is a sad old term of a nostalgic British imperialist and ever hopeful partitionists. For everyone else it is a defunct term..like 'The British Empire' also is because neither exist anymore.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it is a sad old term of a nostalgic British imperialist and ever hopeful partitionists. For everyone else it is a defunct term..like 'The British Empire' also is because neither exist anymore.

It was a geographical term, not a political term, Francie, and yet again you fail to understand the difference. What would you call these islands so? The islands of the North Atlantic?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It was a geographical term, not a political term, Francie, and yet again you fail to understand the difference. What would you call these islands so? The islands of the North Atlantic?

It is a defunct term jan, politically and geographically. Cartographers don't use it anymore (geography) nor politicians (check out the major international agreement called the GFA and see do they use it...they don't).

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is a defunct term jan, politically and geographically. Cartographers don't use it anymore (geography)
.

I think you will find many do actually.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

nor politicians (check out the major international agreement called the GFA and see do they use it...they don't).

They did not use it in the GFA but the GFA was primarily about Northern Ireland, it was not overly concerned with what these islands were called on the world stage.

N.B. someone else said they believed that henceforth RTE weather forecasters should desist from using the explosive term "Irish Sea" for the water that separated our islands suggest the following term that just rolls off the tongue "the sea between Ireland and England Wales and Scotland, containing the Isle of Man". So these islands should also be listed fully, instead of just calling them the "British isles".

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I think you will find many do actually.



They did not use it in the GFA but the GFA was primarily about Northern Ireland, it was not overly concerned with what these islands were called on the world stage.

***

3. We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the
basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South,
and between these islands.

RobMc59

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it is a sad old term of a nostalgic British imperialist and ever hopeful partitionists. For everyone else it is a defunct term..like 'The British Empire' also is because neither exist anymore.

It was a geographical term, not a political term, Francie, and yet again you fail to understand the difference. What would you call these islands so? The islands of the North Atlantic?

This topic has reached a new low on the 'sadometer'scale francie-can you enlighten us about the correct names for Yorkshire pudding,English mustard,Cheddar and Cheshire cheese as I'm sure you'll have alternative names for them with a crackpot theory as to why their names are evidence of Britain(most notably those dastardly English)longing for a return to Empire:D

droidman123

Hypothethically,if france was an island,giving how close it is to britain,would france be in the "british isles"?

RobMc59

10-15 years

droidman123 wrote: »

Hypothethically,if france was an island,giving how close it is to britain,would france be in the "british isles"?

Britain and France were jointly ruled over by various Kings at one point following the Norman conquest.
King Richard the first(know as lionheart/couer de lion)who is regarded as an English hero but couldn't speak a word of English..

Dytalus

15-20 years

droidman123 wrote: »

Hypothethically,if france was an island,giving how close it is to britain,would france be in the "british isles"?

Possibly? The term came into parlance within England through writers, in particular John Dee in about 1577 (who has been disparaged as propaganda, but having not seen the actual writings I can't say whether there's any strength to that). The reason for the common use of 'British Isles' worldwide is likely "because empire." The British conquered a sizable chunk of the world, and their terminology, language, and names for things spread with it. At the time it came into existence, however, Britain didn't have an empire - it only had the plantations in Ireland.

The French likely would have disagreed with being included, and having not been part of the United Kingdom or British Empire for most of their history could well have successfully defended the point locally. Whether that defence would carry into the English speaking world - fueled by the British Empire and their use of the term - is more difficult to guess at. If they had, however, been 'planted' by the British like Ireland had been then yes, they very well could have been included and might still be today.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Britain and France were jointly ruled over by various Kings at one point following the Norman conquest.
King Richard the first(know as lionheart/couer de lion)who is regarded as an English hero but couldn't speak a word of English..

I recall talking to some coworkers while in England about the first people to have occupied Great Britain in any measurable capacity were celtic (the Britons in the south, and the Picts in the north), and that an awful lot of British history and culture is actually fueled by folks who invaded them afterwards. It led on to a pretty interesting history chat.

This was one of the things they (I feel it important to point out it was about a 50/50 split in the office, rather than only the "enlightened Irish" dude knowing anything) didn't know about Richard. People in the office spent a while going around with awful French accents for a while after that conversation.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

The fact the geographic terms for these islands is the British Isles.

Says who? Our government does not use that term. Why is something a fact just because one group of people choose to see it that way? Is the British perspective superior to the Irish view for some reason?

Imreoir2

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

It was a geographical term, not a political term, Francie, and yet again you fail to understand the difference. What would you call these islands so? The islands of the North Atlantic?

I would call one of them Ireland, the other Britain, is there really a reason to have a collective term? If, for some reason, one finds that they must refer to all of the islands between Britain and Ireland then the British and Irish Isles will do, but for some reason it only ever really seems to come up when trolls want to use the term "British Isles" to refer to Ireland while trying to claim Ireland as British.

droidman123

Why not dump iceland in,how about the cape verdes,s,lets not stop there,lets include the canaries....all the british isles.in 300 years time they will all be known as the british isles,because some dude called droidman said so

Jump_In_Jack

10-15 years

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I would call one of them Ireland, the other Britain, is there really a reason to have a collective term? If, for some reason, one finds that they must refer to all of the islands between Britain and Ireland then the British and Irish Isles will do, but for some reason it only ever really seems to come up when trolls want to use the term "British Isles" to refer to Ireland while trying to claim Ireland as British.

It was the same thing recently when the British media were talking about the "Great Britain and Irish Lions" rugby league team, but shortened it to being the British Lions in the media reports.
Brian Carney gave one broadcaster a firm reprimand for doing it on a report recently.
Good man Brian!
Brian Carney rightly stands up for the Irish rugby league players that were forgotten in the British media

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Says who? Our government does not use that term. Why is something a fact just because one group of people choose to see it that way? Is the British perspective superior to the Irish view for some reason?

In janfebmar's eyes, the British view is superior frankly. Her entire posting history backs that up. If the British say it happened in such a way, that is janfebmar's way.

Yeah_Right

A question for Francie, do you consider Ronan O'Gara to be American? Or Jamie Heaslip to be Israeli/Palestinian?

They're former Irish rugby players in case you didn't know.

FrancieBrady

Yeah_Right wrote: »

A question for Francie, do you consider Ronan O'Gara to be American? Or Jamie Heaslip to be Israeli/Palestinian?

They're former Irish rugby players in case you didn't know.

If that is where they were born, that is where they were born.
I can't change that and neither can they.

If you are born in Ireland you are born in Ireland and people born in Ireland are Irish, however they might 'identify' later.

It doesn't make you any less British if that is how you identify...there is nothing to fear here...repeat...nothing to fear.
That is why Paisley and others had no problems with it.

Northern Ireland would probably not have existed, were it not for an 'Irish' man (Carson) after all.
This push away from seeing themselves as 'Irish' has only come about since the emergence of belligerent Unionism in the form of the Arlene's, Sammy's. Gregory's and the Willie Frazer's.

RobMc59

10-15 years

droidman123 wrote: »

Why not dump iceland in,how about the cape verdes,s,lets not stop there,lets include the canaries....all the british isles.in 300 years time they will all be known as the british isles,because some dude called droidman said so

Your comment about the canaries raises the question-are the people there African(geographically part of Africa)or Spanish?

Yeah_Right

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If that is where they were born, that is where they were born.
I can't change that and neither can they.

If you are born in Ireland you are born in Ireland and people born in Ireland are Irish, however they might 'identify' later.

Yeah that's where they were born. To Irish parents. In Heaslip's case, his dad was an officer in the Irish army. Yet to your way of thinking he is Israeli. Its a ridiculous argument.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What else could you be if you are born on an island called Ireland?

As per the GFA, British.

A newborn CANNOT choose anything for themselves.

Christ, you still have a hard-on for the identity of newborns do you. It's sick and perverted. Newborns do not have the capacity to make self-determination, their parents normally make that determination for them in lieu of this fact. Irish parents would generally call them Irish, while British parents would generally call them British.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Ara spare us the obtuse strawmen.

Only in your little head, crammed as it clearly is with stereotypes,

Oh really?

does your fantasy enter the equation. Young Irish in the North will vote for reunification because they're practical enough to know when the tide of history has changed. They know that the spent force of English colonial power/the UK in Ireland has been replaced. Now, to their south is a dynamic Irish state that is a member of one of the most progressive multinational states in world history and that this opens them to far more cultural and intellectual influences than they'll get by being stuck in a post-Brexit sectarian UK backwater with narrow, populist, rightwing English nationalists pulling the strings.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

As per the GFA, British.




Christ, you still have a hard-on for the identity of newborns do you. It's sick and perverted. Newborns do not have the capacity to make self-determination, their parents normally make that determination for them in lieu of this fact. Irish parents would generally call them Irish, while British parents would generally call them British.

Exactly. newborns can't self determine. Somebody else has to do it for them. That child may well grow up and 'identify' as Irish or both. It still doesn't change WHERE they were born...on the island of Ireland.


Does a Jamaican come from anywhere else other than Jamaica if they identify as British?
No, he/she doesn't, they will always come from Jamaica even though they could be a model British citizen.

Is it that you fear conceding some ground to republicanism/shinners/the 'ra that you cannot see this simple truth?

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt8_Ou8rvpQ

Dan Breen?

The same Dan Breen who supported Ailtirí na hAiséirghe, a reactive, nationalist and fascist party?
The same Dan Breen who said, that he fought for freedom, but not democracy.
The same Dan Breen who sent a letter that congratulated Adolf Hitler on his successes in 1943?

You could have used many other Irish volunteers from that era, but remarkable that you pick an Axis supporter.
Dare I say it you share the same characteristics from your posts as those of a cultural fascist.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. newborns can't self determine. Somebody else has to do it for them.

That someone is you I presume?

Sorry, but you do not get to determine the identity of newborns in the North. Let's leave that to the parents.