3 ms·

Thanks for pointing this out! Switched to "British Isles" -- update should be percolating now

by MCSP 2y ago

messe 2y ago
The British Isles is also a somewhat controversial term with colonial implications, and it's not used by the government of Ireland[1]. "Britain and Ireland" would be a safer bet, as the map doesn't include any other islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_British_Isles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_British_Isles
- russellbeattie 2y ago
  Diving into Wikipedia, apparently variations of the name "Britain" have been in use since 30BC, and referred to the big island, with the smaller islands grouped with it, e.g. British Isles. The Irish may not like it, but they're fighting against two millenia of history.
  - messe 2y ago
    And it's use in English only comes from the mid 16th and 17th centuries, right around the time that much of Ireland was being colonized by the British. Frankly, I find the term offensive, and think it should be discouraged in much the same way people have shifted away from "the Ukraine" to simply Ukraine.
    - returningfory2 2y ago
      Why is "the Ukraine" bad?
      - JoshTriplett 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Etymology_and_orthography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Etymology_and_orthogra... It's the difference between a descriptive name for a region and a proper noun for a country.
  - returningfory2 2y ago
    Sure, but more recent history should have a higher weight. It is reasonable that our names for things reflect recent history and current affairs more than ancient history. Two thousand years ago Britain and Ireland were ethnically and linguistically pretty similar (I believe). Since then they have diverged in many ways - most significantly during the Reformation period when people in Britain largely left Catholicism, but people in Ireland remained Catholic. Changes like this and the legacy of colonialism this have ultimately resulted in Ireland having distinctly non-British identity. It is reasonable that our naming for things reflect this current state of affairs. As always, it useful to consider other examples to clarify the point. For example, by the same argument, should we deprecate the phrase "Latin America"? After all, Latin Europeans only arrived in the Americas 500 years ago and the continent has had people for 10 thousand years before that. Are people who include a European adjective in the name of this cultural area "fighting against ten millenia of history"?
- gowld 2y ago
  Safest to just remove Ireland from the map. It's not needed for the demo.
- MCSP 2y ago
  Switched to "Britain + Ireland"!

Thanks for pointing this out! Switched to "British Isles" -- update should be percolating now

by MCSP 2y ago

Thanks for pointing this out! Switched to "British Isles" -- update should be percolating now

The British Isles is also a somewhat controversial term with colonial implications, and it's not used by the government of Ireland[1]. "Britain and Ireland" would be a safer bet, as the map doesn't include any other islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_British_Isles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_British_Isles

russellbeattie 2y ago
Diving into Wikipedia, apparently variations of the name "Britain" have been in use since 30BC, and referred to the big island, with the smaller islands grouped with it, e.g. British Isles. The Irish may not like it, but they're fighting against two millenia of history.
- messe 2y ago
  And it's use in English only comes from the mid 16th and 17th centuries, right around the time that much of Ireland was being colonized by the British. Frankly, I find the term offensive, and think it should be discouraged in much the same way people have shifted away from "the Ukraine" to simply Ukraine.
  - returningfory2 2y ago
    Why is "the Ukraine" bad?
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Etymology_and_orthography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Etymology_and_orthogra... It's the difference between a descriptive name for a region and a proper noun for a country.
- returningfory2 2y ago
  Sure, but more recent history should have a higher weight. It is reasonable that our names for things reflect recent history and current affairs more than ancient history. Two thousand years ago Britain and Ireland were ethnically and linguistically pretty similar (I believe). Since then they have diverged in many ways - most significantly during the Reformation period when people in Britain largely left Catholicism, but people in Ireland remained Catholic. Changes like this and the legacy of colonialism this have ultimately resulted in Ireland having distinctly non-British identity. It is reasonable that our naming for things reflect this current state of affairs. As always, it useful to consider other examples to clarify the point. For example, by the same argument, should we deprecate the phrase "Latin America"? After all, Latin Europeans only arrived in the Americas 500 years ago and the continent has had people for 10 thousand years before that. Are people who include a European adjective in the name of this cultural area "fighting against ten millenia of history"?
gowld 2y ago
Safest to just remove Ireland from the map. It's not needed for the demo.
MCSP 2y ago
Switched to "Britain + Ireland"!