nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

'The British Isles'

ToddyDoody

Is it time we started calling it the Irish Isles?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Vinculus

I wonder how the people from Donegal feel about living in southern Ireland.

josip

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

Nah Belgium holds that title bub

Yes, thank God it's surrounded by water.

archer22

You think being confused with the British is bad, well it gets worse.
On the Russian news sites after the MMA fight most of those commenting on McGregor and his fans thought they and Ireland were American.

Although on second thoughts maybe that's not so bad..unless you happen to be a real American (then it's really bad)!!

[Deleted User]

alta stare wrote: »

The missus is English and she had no clue of the troubles when living in England.

was she living in a cave, or at the bottom of a very deep well?

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

was she living in a cave, or at the bottom of a very deep well?

No, she went to a British school, obviously.

[Deleted User]

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, she went to a British school, obviously.

And missed numerous IRA bombs, obviously.

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

And missed numerous IRA bombs, obviously.

Yes, obviously.

madbeanman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s a bit mad that it’s not taught in schools. It’s not something the current generations need to be ashamed of, but it’s part of the history.

The English are as likely to know about the conflict in Ireland as they are to know about any other regional conflict in the world because they’d get most of it from newspapers. The nationalistic newspapers like the Express won’t cover the history of Ni, neither will the daily mail or the tabloids. So it would have to come from the guardian, times, FT or BBC. That’s a narrow demographic of British people who read those sources.

It’s not wilful ignorance on the part of the individuals. They just don’t hear about the history of Ireland.

There’s no point getting bent out of shape about it. They just don’t know as much about it as we do and we’re generally a it more sensitive about it than they are.

Nah, this point is brought up a lot and I disagree. So in one sense, yes they dont learn about the history of the British-Irish relationship and thats ok in some sense.

Its not the idea that they should know everything about the history of the Penal Laws, Famine, Land Acts etc. etc. but the current tensions in NI are literally part of their country, that isnt history, its Civics and its super important.

When I lived abroad a literal majority of the British people I knew (I wasnt living in Britain) didnt know Ireland was a seperate state. Thats not a failure of history teaching, its a failure of geography teaching. Tell me another country (countries with disputed territories excluded) that wouldnt be able to tell you where their border is.

If someone uses the term British Isles around me Im not going to be outraged but its better to have a more accurate term to be honest.

El_Duderino 09

Aegir wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, she went to a British school, obviously.

And missed numerous IRA bombs, obviously.

Harsh. The politics of the troubles are important and a topic of conversation to us but much less important important to them. They focused on the fact that their soldiers, sons, community members were in danger.
Myjry don’t tealky teach the politics in schools.

A mate of mine said he was taught about the Indian revolution in school and couldn’t understand why the Indians caused so much trouble. It only occurred to him years later that if the Indians didn’t want to be part of the British empire then they were dead right to try to get out.

It’s not their fault if they’re not told about it. The ones who do know about it have found out for themselves

indioblack

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, she went to a British school, obviously.

And when she left school she ceased to be receptive to any information?
She didn't read a newspaper, watch TV, used the information superhighway, [internet], - she didn't read a book?
It was news. Recent, historical.
I'd say it was impossible to actually know nothing.

[Deleted User]

madbeanman wrote: »

Nah, this point is brought up a lot and I disagree. So in one sense, yes they dont learn about the history of the British-Irish relationship and thats ok in some sense.

Its not the idea that they should know everything about the history of the Penal Laws, Famine, Land Acts etc. etc. but the current tensions in NI are literally part of their country, that isnt history, its Civics and its super important.

When I lived abroad a literal majority of the British people I knew (I wasnt living in Britain) didnt know Ireland was a seperate state. Thats not a failure of history teaching, its a failure of geography teaching. Tell me another country (countries with disputed territories excluded) that wouldnt be able to tell you where their border is.

If someone uses the term British Isles around me Im not going to be outraged but its better to have a more accurate term to be honest.

Irish people just aren't considered "Foreign" in the UK, which is where the confusion comes from.

Spook_ie

Del.Monte wrote: »

Perhaps we could do a name swap and the Brits could rename the Irish Sea the British Sea? OP you have little to worry you.

Come Brexit we'll only have Irish the Brits will get the sea bit

madbeanman

Aegir wrote: »

Irish people just aren't considered "Foreign" in the UK, which is where the confusion comes from.

And a geography lesson could clear all of that up ^^

Spook_ie

jhenno78 wrote: »

The Western European Archipelago has a nice ring to it. We should call it that.

Could be worse, Scotland means "Land of the Irish". Let's not for get that Ireland once had an empire too...ish

Anyway, this is a bit of a silly thing IMO. The only negative of the term in my eyes is that it confuses Americans ever so much.

Unless something is called "The State of ......" within the United States the 'mericans don't know anything about it anyway

archer22

"British isles" is only a Geographical term not political.

Same as "Great Britain" does not refer to politics or achievement but is just a geographical term for the largest island in the British isles

swampgas

My wife was educated in England in the 70s and she tells me they didn't cover Ireland during history at all. They seemed to spend a lot of time memorising details about various Kings and Queens down through the ages, and studying the French Revolution.

I was helping my niece (who lives in London) with her history homework about 6 or 7 years ago, and it was a detailed piece all about the troubles in Northern Ireland, and it gave a pretty fair overview of the way the nationalists/Catholics were mistreated, covered the civil rights movement, and so on. Now I can't remember if she was doing O levels or A levels at the time (or whatever they are called now, GCSE?) and I don't know if she selected History as an optional subject. And as far as I know the syllabus allows the teacher to select from a fairly wide choice of topics, so another teacher might not have covered Northern Ireland at all. So I have no idea how many others of her generation actually studied any Irish history.

It was an interesting experience though, seeing what I used to know as current affairs showing up in a history book.

madbeanman

archer22 wrote: »

"British isles" is only a Geographical term not political.

Same as "Great Britain" does not refer to politics or achievement but is just a geographical term for the largest island in the British isles

Well this ignores the entire idea of linguistic pragmatics. When someone says something the hearing infers what they say and comes to the quickest relevant interpretation of what is said to them.

So, given the colonial history between the two Isles it makes sense that some people may infer a sense of ownership from the term British Isles.

The term doesnt exist in a vacum devoid of how it is interpreted just because its geographical.

Spook_ie

Dank Janniels wrote: »

We should rename it the Confederation of Unionist +Nationalist Territories, or in short.........

Old Joke Revised time.

When they were an Empire they had an Empress,
When they were a Kingdom they had a King,
Now they're a Country they have Theresa May.

[Deleted User]

madbeanman wrote: »

And a geography lesson could clear all of that up ^^

Or if Irish people stopped appearing on X factor, Britain’s got talent or Strictly come dancing.

If the BBC didn’t have numerous radio and tv shows hosted by Irish nationals, or if every major British football club didn’t have a large number of Irish supporters claiming that “we’re” the greatest team in the world.

Then, of course, there’s the huge number of British people that have Irish ancestors and Irish cousins.

The Irish only treat the UK as a foreign country when it suits them, so you’ll have to forgive the British for doing pretty much the same.

archer22

madbeanman wrote: »

Well this ignores the entire idea of linguistic pragmatics. When someone says something the hearing infers what they say and comes to the quickest relevant interpretation of what is said to them.

So, given the colonial history between the two Isles it makes sense that some people may infer a sense of ownership from the term British Isles.

The term doesnt exist in a vacum devoid of how it is interpreted just because its geographical.

Not really....I don't think anybody thinks that India owns the Indian Ocean.

The problem some Irish have with the name British Isles is just based on insecurity and lack of self confidence.
Why else would anyone read something into it like you have...basically who would give a toss about a geographical term.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Aegir wrote: »

Irish people just aren't considered "Foreign" in the UK, which is where the confusion comes from.

The casualty runs the other way. They think we aren’t foreign because they are confused. They are confused because of a lack of education.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Aegir wrote: »

Or if Irish people stopped appearing on X factor, Britain’s got talent or Strictly come dancing.

If the BBC didn’t have numerous radio and tv shows hosted by Irish nationals, or if every major British football club didn’t have a large number of Irish supporters claiming that “we’re” the greatest team in the world.

Then, of course, there’s the huge number of British people that have Irish ancestors and Irish cousins.

The Irish only treat the UK as a foreign country when it suits them, so you’ll have to forgive the British for doing pretty much the same.

Nonsense. All of that relationship could happen , as it does between the US and Canada, without the British not knowing where the United Kingdom begins and ends. That’s not just history it’s simple geography.

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The casualty runs the other way. They think we aren’t foreign because they are confused. They are confused because of a lack of education.

**** all to do with lack of education, it is a lack of interest. The obsession only goes one way.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Aegir wrote: »

**** all to do with lack of education, it is a lack of interest. The obsession only goes one way.

No, it’s simple education. Here’s a line on a map, that’s where the state you live in ends.

seamus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’ve found that the ones who say ‘southern Irish’ know it’s the part that not in the UK. They just aren’t up on the lingo. If you give people the benefit of the doubt you’ll find that very few of them mean any harm by their faux pas.

And to be fair, it's not that different to referring to someone as "English" or "Welsh", etc. These place a geographical/political location on someone's origin, without making explicit references to citizenship.

That is, someone from NI or RoI can be Irish, in the same way that someone from NI, Scotland, Wales or England is British.

So "British" or "Irish" doesn't accurately tell you where someone is from. "Southern Irish" may rankle, but logically if "Northern Irish" is a thing (and it is), then I'm not going to get worked up that someone reasonably expects that "Southern Irish" must also be a thing.

Roadtoad

alchemist33 wrote: »

It must be days since we had one of these threads

Multiple Wearing Poppies threads coming right up!

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No, it’s simple education. Here’s a line on a map, that’s where the state you live in ends.

and everyone is taught that in school. Whether or not that sinks in is a different matter.

Just as everyone here is told that British does not equal English, yet the majority seem to have a problem comprehending that.

madbeanman

Aegir wrote: »

Or if Irish people stopped appearing on X factor, Britain’s got talent or Strictly come dancing.

If the BBC didn’t have numerous radio and tv shows hosted by Irish nationals, or if every major British football club didn’t have a large number of Irish supporters claiming that “we’re” the greatest team in the world.

Then, of course, there’s the huge number of British people that have Irish ancestors and Irish cousins.

The Irish only treat the UK as a foreign country when it suits them, so you’ll have to forgive the British for doing pretty much the same.

But obviously colonialsm is a sensitive issue around the world. I see no problem with Irish people appearing on British shows and living there and vice versa. Like if a guy from Zimbabwe hosted a show on the BBC would people be excused for confusing him/her as British? They wouldnt, nor should they be. Proximity isnt an excuse.

Ive no axe to grind with the British but colonialism is a dreadful stain on history. Its up to major colonial powers to be sensitive to their histories. They dont need to keep being punished for it or their current citizens berated but if you remove historical context from the term British Isles that you perpetuate a narrative that, ah sure colonialism wasnt a big deal, lets move in.

Its not a nationalistic thing. I would support it if it France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Italy or Japan doing the same thing.

archer22 wrote: »

Not really....I don't think anybody thinks that India owns the Indian Ocean.

The problem some Irish have with the name British Isles is just based on insecurity and lack of self confidence.
Why else would anyone read something into it like you have...basically who would give a toss about a geographical term.

Nobody lives in the ocean.

As for why people give a toss, see above.

OldRio

Aegir wrote: »

and everyone is taught that in school. Whether or not that sinks in is a different matter.

Just as everyone here is told that British does not equal English, yet the majority seem to have a problem comprehending that.

Therefore lack of education.
You do know the definition of education?

RandomName2

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Is it time we started calling it the Irish Isles?

The Britons were Celts.

Scotland means land of the Irish.

Will someone please think of Brittany.

Your argument is invalid.