Screen capture from the end of that video:Pappa wrote:

Perfectly clear to me.

Screen capture from the end of that video:Pappa wrote:
Meh. Just because he made the same error means nothing.Red Celt wrote:Cormac, honestly, you're being overly antagonistic towards a simple fact. I can fully understand the reason for that antagonism, but it is wrongly-placed.Cormac wrote:10 PRINT "Geography is political."Red Celt wrote:10 PRINT "Geographically, not politically."Cormac wrote:That doesn't fly. Geographical naming IS political.
This is not a British Isle. It never has been - even during 8 centuries of occupation.
20 GOTO 10
20 GOTO 10
"The earliest written records of Ireland come from classical Greco-Roman geographers. Ptolemy in his Almagest refers to Ireland as Mikra Brettania (Lesser Britain), in contrast to the larger island, which he called Megale Brettania (Great Britain)."
These group of islands, off the Western coast of Europe are called the British Isles. Not because they're all owned, controlled or been the possession of London, but because that's what they're called. The subsequent history of these isles have given Irish people a very understandable reason to reject that label, but facts aren't altered by wishes or opinions. Ireland is one of several British Isles and that would be true even if it hadn't been under the control of invaders from the largest British Isle.
Tried and failed.HomerJay wrote:This is mainly a problem caused by the weaknesses of previous regimes.
If England had said to the minority lands, 'Look, we own you now, you're part of England' this would never have happened.
We've caused more harm by trying to be good.
Hmmm ... as someone who protests (rightly) about the UK being confused with England, this is an odd perspective to hold.Red Celt wrote: ...
These group of islands, off the Western coast of Europe are called the British Isles. Not because they're all owned, controlled or been the possession of London, but because that's what they're called. The subsequent history of these isles have given Irish people a very understandable reason to reject that label, but facts aren't altered by wishes or opinions. Ireland is one of several British Isles and that would be true even if it hadn't been under the control of invaders from the largest British Isle.
I'm confused. This is a disparity between fact and opinion. It doesn't matter what I do or do not like.klr wrote:Hmmm ... as someone who protests (rightly) about the UK being confused with England, this is an odd perspective to hold.
If/when Scotland gets its independence, would you object to someone who uses the term "Great Britain"? Or even "Britain" ...
Just because the term "British Isles" dates all the way back to the Greek and Romans, doesn't mean it's valid usage anymore. There are plenty of geographical names that are no longer common currency for some reason or other.
When was the word "British" adopted by the people on the bigger of these two islands?Red Celt wrote:I'm confused. This is a disparity between fact and opinion. It doesn't matter what I do or do not like.klr wrote:Hmmm ... as someone who protests (rightly) about the UK being confused with England, this is an odd perspective to hold.
If/when Scotland gets its independence, would you object to someone who uses the term "Great Britain"? Or even "Britain" ...
Just because the term "British Isles" dates all the way back to the Greek and Romans, doesn't mean it's valid usage anymore. There are plenty of geographical names that are no longer common currency for some reason or other.
Many geographical names and/or political names are value-laden, often unwittingly so. I can validly protest against persistent use of "British Isles", being a citizen of a sovereign state that is not "British", no matter how much culture we share.Red Celt wrote:I'm confused. This is a disparity between fact and opinion. It doesn't matter what I do or do not like.klr wrote:Hmmm ... as someone who protests (rightly) about the UK being confused with England, this is an odd perspective to hold.
If/when Scotland gets its independence, would you object to someone who uses the term "Great Britain"? Or even "Britain" ...
Just because the term "British Isles" dates all the way back to the Greek and Romans, doesn't mean it's valid usage anymore. There are plenty of geographical names that are no longer common currency for some reason or other.
Come out of the Pale and say that ...Animavore wrote:Meh. I don't feel strongly about these islands been called 'The British Isles'.
But then, I'm a Jackeen
God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen
God save the queen....
The madness of Grafton Street and Henry Street in December ... er, no thanks. We do have shops and access to the Internet here in the sticks y'know.Animavore wrote:Shudup, you. We should've built a wall to keep you out.
When you comin' down to do your Christmas shopping.
When referring to England and Wales , "Great Britain" would be factually untrue. It would be like referring to the U.S.A. as North America, ignoring Canada. "Britain" is a shorthand for United Kingdom of Great Britain. So, again, it would be untrue.klr wrote:If/when Scotland gets its independence, would you object to someone who uses the term "Great Britain"? Or even "Britain" ...
God bless the webs. I hate going into that city. I'll go as far as Swords if and that's it.klr wrote:The madness of Grafton Street and Henry Street in December ... er, no thanks. We do have shops and access to the Internet here in the sticks y'know.Animavore wrote:Shudup, you. We should've built a wall to keep you out.
When you comin' down to do your Christmas shopping.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests