Who does the Lions represent for you?

First topic message reminder :

For you personally, are the Lions representing the British isles, or are they representing your nation whilst playing for the Lions?

This is not a question of which is more important to you. For example, I support England and if I had to choose would rather England won a world cup than the Lions win a Test series. But this does not mean that my enjoyment of or interest in the Lions is related to England's representation in the Lions. As I've said a few times, If I felt the best lions XV was all Irish, then I'd be happy with seeing that named because they are representing the British Isles. I'm not supporting England through the medium of the Lions so it makes no difference.

It's been put to me that it's easy for me to say that, because as an England fan, England have always been well represented, but I still find it curious that some fans are not bothered about the Lions unless a lot of their players are selected.

I can honestly say I have been interested in TWO Lions tours in my life time.  I was excited by the 1989 tour to Australia which was amazing.  The second was 1997 to South Africa, they had stars, magic, drama, world class players.  Frankly I think everything other than that had been pointless dross.  

I think it's time the Lions was totally scrapped and replaced with a European Cup.  I know some will say it's pointless but people said that about the football World Cup, European Cup, and Rugby World Cup in the beginning.  We're not altering the 6 Nations, and I agree with that, so how do we grow European rugby?  4 pools of 4 teams would be good enough to start with, giving the chance for countries like Georgia, Romania and Spain to improve, while giving a chance to countries like Germany who have fans but no real chance to improve.  Failing that how about an Eurasia Cup?  The 6 NAtions, 6 Nations B, and the top 4 teams in the Asian tournament.  

Secondly player welfare, so the Unions make the same amount as one home Six nations game?  Is that really worth sending players to the other side of the world for 6 weeks?  Invariable players come back injured and exhausted and the following 6 nations is normally dominated by France or England as Wales and Ireland haven't the depth to compete due to the injuries.  Then they try and cram in some kind of half baked Lions game BEFORE the tour which is always a disaster.  

Even looking at the Lions record, against New Zealand it reads played 38, won 6...  Then we are off to Australia, where we almost always trash most of their teams by huge scores due to their lack of depth.  In modern day rugby all the main Provinces don't play their best players against the Lions incase of injures anyway, so why play those games?  

If they MUST go on a 6 week tour, surely just play 3 weeks and 3 tests in Australia, then goto NewZealand, and leave the midweek games.  Then alternate with 3 weeks and 3 games in Argentina, then do another 3 weeks, and 3 games South Africa.  

Personally I'm all for scrapping the Lions, the players wouldn't bother going if it wasn't for the crazy amount of money they get, and few of them actually look like they care about pulling on the jersey anyway.

If we have to keep the Lions then I'd like to see them tour Europe each season with players who didn't make the main squads of their countries. For example if Wales are touring South Africa, and England are touring New Zealand then take any left over players not needed by their nations. The Lions could then go on a tour for the same amount of time as England. So if England were playing 3 tests in 3 weeks against New Zealand, then the Lions could play Spain, Portugal and Germany or something to promote the game.

Anyone born & living on the island of Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship/passport. People living in Northern Ireland including members of my family express themselves as Irish or British or sometimes Northern Irish.

British & Irish Lions fits perfectly as a description (notwithstanding the possible presence of a CJ Stander, WP Nel or Ben Te'o.). I understand that the tour squad is drawn from players who play for the four rugby unions of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England.

In short, they are the WISE LIONS.

The Lions discussion reminds me a lot about the Irish provinces and Ireland.

Should Ireland always have representation from all provinces? There is a lot of tension regarding Schmidt and his Leinster bias and also Connacht being ignored on a regular basis? Is it truly an Irish side?

 I guess it depends on which province you support. Connacht have obvious comparisons with Scotland in the Lions.

Cyril wrote:I guess it depends on which province you support. Connacht have obvious comparisons with Scotland in the Lions.

Which province would Wales compare with then?

Pot Hale wrote:Anyone born & living on the island of Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship/passport.  People living in Northern Ireland including members of my family express themselves as Irish or British or sometimes Northern Irish.  

British & Irish Lions fits perfectly as a description (notwithstanding the possible presence of a CJ Stander, WP Nel or Ben Te'o.).  I understand that the tour squad is drawn from players who play for the four rugby unions of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England.  

In short, they are the WISE LIONS.  

With his English mother of course.

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:Here's one that will make you laugh. Or cry, as it did with me

My mother is from Northern Ireland, voted Brexit in the U.K.,, but now intends to pursue an Irish passport to give her easier/better access to Europe for holidays, etc. So voted to leave but wants to retain the advantages that being in the union entitles you to. FFS. You couldn't make it up!

Nothing wrong with that at all.  Pro-Europe - anti-EU.  Perfectly logical.  The EU don't own Europe. - they just think they do.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that she seems anti-Europe too in terms of immigration, free movement of people (except when it's her going on holiday), etc!

There is something quite selfish about that IMO. It seems a lot of Brexit voters are fairly deluded or entitled people. They want to have their cake and eat it.

Aren't people expected to vote selfishly? The mistake was asking the general public.

Steffan wrote:

Cyril wrote:I guess it depends on which province you support. Connacht have obvious comparisons with Scotland in the Lions.

Which province would Wales compare with then?

Meath

Scottrf wrote:Aren't people expected to vote selfishly? The mistake was asking the general public.

I thought the mistake was selecting Gats as coach?

Cyril wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Cyril wrote:I guess it depends on which province you support. Connacht have obvious comparisons with Scotland in the Lions.

Which province would Wales compare with then?

Meath

Meath gets a heck of a shout out on this International site and particularly on this Rugby Union section.

There must be a Meath man secretly funding the damn outfit.

cascough wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

cascough wrote:It's merely a geographical term, and that's what the team represents.

It did even used to be called the British Isles touring team!

*edit - it includes all the islands and that's pertinent when you think that not all of the islands are intrinsically linked to one of the WRU, SRU, IRFU or the RFU, Jersey for example.

It was obviously worded intentionally to be provocative. It doesn't bother me really but you cant claim you weren't trying to annoy people.

Sadly I fear Britain and Ireland are metaphorically going to drift further apart in the coming years making the term British isles even more redundant.

It really wasn't.

I'm aware that it offends certain people (as it has been very recently pointed out to me) but i have no idea why it would be considered offensive. Secondly, not only is it geographically correct I actually feel it is the most appropriate term. We are a collection of islands. As I've said, for me the Lions is representing those islands and NOT the Welsh, Scottish, Irish or English national rugby teams.

So again, it really wasn't.

Agree Guns... so does cascough. He admits that he was aware before posting that the term offends people yet posted it anyway despite having "no idea why it would be considered offensive".

Perhaps to enlighten those with no idea on the 'why' part - it is the possessive nature of the term that implies the Isles are British. So just as the Scottish highlands are indisputably Scottish, and the English team represents England so the term 'British Isles' imply the Isles (including Ireland) belong to Britain and are referred to as such in British geography books but not Irish ones (i.e. books used in Ireland).

Ireland is the land of saints and scholars with a load of little people and the odd giant thrown in - which is appropriate as the group They Might be Giants explored the relationship between GB and Ireland in their song "You're not the boss of me now".

Ah Falklands vs Malvinas.

The Great Aukster wrote:
Agree Guns... so does cascough. He admits that he was aware before posting that the term offends people yet posted it anyway despite having "no idea why it would be considered offensive".

Perhaps to enlighten those with no idea on the 'why' part - it is the possessive nature of the term that implies the Isles are British. So just as the Scottish highlands are indisputably Scottish, and the English team represents England so the term 'British Isles' imply the Isles (including Ireland) belong to Britain and are referred to as such in British geography books but not Irish ones (i.e. books used in Ireland).

Not entirely sure I follow. True the Scottish Highlands are Scottish, but they still reside within the UK, that's a fact.

Ireland is still Irish (apart from Ulster) but still exists within the collection of Islands known globally as the British Isles, that's a fact too, it even has it's own wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

It's a bit like a Jamaican saying that he is offended by the term the Caribbean islands. I'm not entirely sure how facts can be offensive. Opinions yes, but sadly facts are plain, and contain no ambiguity.

I believe it's factually accurate and also I felt it was the correct/most appropriate term (for reasons I explained). I'm not in the habit of avoiding facts just because some people don't like them. However, had I realised it would cause the thread to be hijacked somewhat and deviate to a question I simply wasn't asking, I'd have refrained from using it.

cascough wrote:I believe it's factually accurate and also I felt it was the correct/most appropriate term (for reasons I explained). I'm not in the habit of avoiding facts just because some people don't like them. However, had I realised it would cause the thread to be hijacked somewhat and deviate to a question I simply wasn't asking, I'd have refrained from using it.

Yeah this thread was actually quite good I thought, an interesting question that has been well answered by most but appears to have been derailed somewhat by debates on geography terminology. I must admit with my last comment I haven't helped steer this thread back onto the topic and for that I apologise.

i'd love Ronan o Gara to answer this question. Anyway the facts are well known.

1997 Lions tour won thanks to Jenks
2001 Simply insufficient Welshmen in the starting sides to make an impact, dominated by English. Vickery carded in first test.
2005 Lions tour lost thanks to SCW picking his mates, again too many English players picked on rep.
2009 Lions tour lost thanks to Vickery and ROG, literally, and despite Man of Series Doc and S Jones heroic efforts to keep us in the 2nd tests
2013 Lions tour won thanks to dropping BOD and bringing Doc in, almost all tour's points scored by Half and the Welsh contingent

I'd say English and Irish contributions to the Lions isn't something to write home about. Vickery is a Lions nightmare.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Ireland is still Irish (apart from Ulster) but still exists within the collection of Islands known globally as the British Isles, that's a fact too, it even has it's own wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

Actually, a lack of knowledge (understandable to be sure - none of us can know everything   ) allows people to be oblivious to the sensitivity around words and therefore they are understandably confused when that sensitivity is given voice.  "Why are you annoyed and offended?" "Em - because I'm annoyed and offended, I don't need written permission."

In that context of confusion, and with a smile on my lips and just for word fun, let's just refocus on your sentence.  

"Ireland is still Irish (apart from Ulster) but still exists within the collection of islands known globally as the British Isles, that's a fact too...."


Well, that sentence is not actually factual on two counts:

1) Ireland is still Irish, even the part of Ulster that is called Northern Ireland - even its inhabitants are refered to as Northern Irish.
2) Ulster is not Northern Ireland.  Three of Ulster's nine counties (and the biggest one of them) are actually in the Republic.  'Ulster' is only a symbolic name used by the UK region Northern Ireland.  All of Northern Ireland is in the UK but not all of Ulster is in the UK.

Back to Father Ted, and back Griff and that word again - complex.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:
Agree Guns... so does cascough. He admits that he was aware before posting that the term offends people yet posted it anyway despite having "no idea why it would be considered offensive".

Perhaps to enlighten those with no idea on the 'why' part - it is the possessive nature of the term that implies the Isles are British. So just as the Scottish highlands are indisputably Scottish, and the English team represents England so the term 'British Isles' imply the Isles (including Ireland) belong to Britain and are referred to as such in British geography books but not Irish ones (i.e. books used in Ireland).

Not entirely sure I follow. True the Scottish Highlands are Scottish, but they still reside within the UK, that's a fact.

Ireland is still Irish (apart from Ulster) but still exists within the collection of Islands known globally as the British Isles, that's a fact too, it even has it's own wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

It's a bit like a Jamaican saying that he is offended by the term the Caribbean islands. I'm not entirely sure how facts can be offensive. Opinions yes, but sadly facts are plain, and contain no ambiguity.

Did you read the Wikipedia page, Radge?   Fourth paragraph about the name being disputed?
In addition, the beginning of the article has the following:
British Isles (English)
Breetish Isles  (Scots)
Ynysoedd Prydain  (Welsh)
Enesow Bretennek  (Cornish)
Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór  (Irish)
Eileanan Bhreatainn  (Scottish Gaelic)
Ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh  (Manx)
Îles Britanniques  (French)

The Irish translation is "Ireland and Great Britain"

I think the point being missed is that the question posed by the OP was:
"For you personally, are the Lions representing the British isles, or are they representing your nation whilst playing for the Lions?"

I replied to this honestly saying it was the Irish players in the team that interested me and that the term British Isles didn't mean anything to me.   It was pointed out to the author that British Isles is not a term readily used by Irish to describe where they're from or which they feel they're part of.  I'm not offended by the term at all. As far as I'm concerned it's factually inaccurate as the Isles are not British, but rather British & Irish.  This is not a difficult argument to follow as I'm sure many Irish players may have argued when objecting to the Lions being called the British Lions.  

So no offence taken at all. It's just not an accurate description as far as I'm concerned and I don't have any affinity with the geographic description.  A more detailed description of Ireland's views of the term can be read here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute.  

Names or terms do have different meanings to different people and it's part of the linguistic history of the relationship between Britain and Ireland. From deliberate anglicisation of Irish placenames and localities during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to even more modern times.  The Irish and British governments disagreed for many years on what the country should be called even after independence.  In more recent decades, the ancient province of Ulster was appropriated to describe Northern Ireland only with the deliberate use by Unionist politicians of the word province to describe the six county union.   Even county names are ignored as administrative terms and have been overlaid with combined district names e.g. Newry-Mourne.  

So it's not unsurprising that some Irish people may seem to be "offended" by hijacking of language or use of terms that imply one thing, but are passed off as factually correct cos that's what geographers say.  

So if British people want to continue to use the term and what it implies that's their choice. But equally they shouldn't be surprised if Irish people have a different point of view.

Great Britain is the name of one island, Ireland the name of the one where I live.  Britain & Ireland. British & Irish Lions.  It's very straightforward.

Cheers

Personally I'd prefer to get away from the national identities which are now more divide than a banner of cohesion and just call it the Lions.
The English don't feel the need to brand their union of English, and since its really their Lions it makes sense to drop the troublesome British and Irish.

So what is the collective term for the group of islands up 'yer in the north west of Europe?

Griff wrote:So what is the collective term for the group of islands up 'yer in the north west of Europe?

Read the link I posted for alternatives now used https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

Gooseberry wrote:Personally I'd prefer to get away from the national identities which are now more divide than a banner of cohesion and just call it the Lions.
The English don't feel the need to brand their union of English, and since its really their Lions it makes sense to drop the troublesome British and Irish.

   

Always said the English should take more ownership of the Lions tours and let the rest of us get on with International  That's settled, the English to make up the bulk of the squad (99.9%), Gatland to represent the Welsh, some doctor or bus driver to represent the Scots, Best to represent the Irish Bench and the other .1%) - and that stops all future debate on the subject.

Griff wrote:So what is the collective term for the group of islands up 'yer in the north west of Europe?

They don't need a collective name. They're not going to get lost if nobody knows what to call them. Just call them Ireland and Britain.

But if you like The British Isles to help you remember, then go for it, Griff.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:So what is the collective term for the group of islands up 'yer in the north west of Europe?

They don't need a collective name.  They're not going to get lost if nobody knows what to call them.  Just call them Ireland and Britain.  

But if you like The British Isles to help you remember, then go for it, Griff.  

Ooh, miaow! My memory is fine, thanks 'Fly.

I don't see the issue with naming stuff personally. I studied geography and geology many moons ago and naming and naming conventions for things in geography makes sense to me. I'm fond of studying and understanding different island groups, archipelagos, etc. Find it quite fascinating. But they're all named. And I'm sure it's not so people don't lose them I mean, why name the continents and assign countries to each at all? What's the point?! Why have the Florida Keys? Why group the Aegean Islands together? Shall we disband the Philippines?! Naming stuff is what we do, us humans!

But looking at that list on Pot's link there's about 20 different ways people might 'like' to refer to the group of islands. Can't see the point in having different names. Just confusing. I'm not saying it has to be 'British Isles' but I think there should be one name, and if there's a reason for grouping them together for some geographical/geological reason then I don't personally feel the people inhabiting the lands should change the name as they see fit (although I know that that has happened continually over the years). Just to be clear though, I'm not saying we should change the name of Countries here. Just have a collective name for the group of rocks under our feet if indeed there is a good enough reason for grouping them together in the first place.

My next quest: to rename the Canary Islands to something I prefer

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:So what is the collective term for the group of islands up 'yer in the north west of Europe?

They don't need a collective name.  They're not going to get lost if nobody knows what to call them.  Just call them Ireland and Britain.  

But if you like The British Isles to help you remember, then go for it, Griff.  

Ooh, miaow! My memory is fine, thanks 'Fly.

I don't see the issue with naming stuff personally. I studied geography and geology many moons ago and naming and naming conventions for things in geography makes sense to me. I'm fond of studying and understanding different island groups, archipelagos, etc.  Find it quite fascinating. But they're all named. And I'm sure it's not so people don't lose them I mean, why name the continents and assign countries to each at all? What's the point?! Why have the Florida Keys? Why group the Aegean Islands together? Shall we disband the Philippines?!  Naming stuff is what we do, us humans!

But looking at that list on Pot's link there's about 20 different ways people might 'like' to refer to the group of islands. Can't see the point in having different names. Just confusing. I'm not saying it has to be 'British Isles' but I think there should be one name, and if there's a reason for grouping them together for some geographical/geological reason then I don't personally feel the people inhabiting the lands should change the name as they see fit (although I know that that has happened continually over the years). Just to be clear though, I'm not saying we should change the name of Countries here. Just have a collective name for the group of rocks under our feet if indeed there is a good enough reason for grouping them together in the first place.

My next quest: to rename the Canary Islands to something I prefer

Fair points Griff. So do you think these rocks under our feet should be called British? Or should other words be used? As you've pointed out, they've been called different things over the centuries.

Pot Hale wrote:

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:So what is the collective term for the group of islands up 'yer in the north west of Europe?

They don't need a collective name.  They're not going to get lost if nobody knows what to call them.  Just call them Ireland and Britain.  

But if you like The British Isles to help you remember, then go for it, Griff.  

Ooh, miaow! My memory is fine, thanks 'Fly.

I don't see the issue with naming stuff personally. I studied geography and geology many moons ago and naming and naming conventions for things in geography makes sense to me. I'm fond of studying and understanding different island groups, archipelagos, etc.  Find it quite fascinating. But they're all named. And I'm sure it's not so people don't lose them I mean, why name the continents and assign countries to each at all? What's the point?! Why have the Florida Keys? Why group the Aegean Islands together? Shall we disband the Philippines?!  Naming stuff is what we do, us humans!

But looking at that list on Pot's link there's about 20 different ways people might 'like' to refer to the group of islands. Can't see the point in having different names. Just confusing. I'm not saying it has to be 'British Isles' but I think there should be one name, and if there's a reason for grouping them together for some geographical/geological reason then I don't personally feel the people inhabiting the lands should change the name as they see fit (although I know that that has happened continually over the years). Just to be clear though, I'm not saying we should change the name of Countries here. Just have a collective name for the group of rocks under our feet if indeed there is a good enough reason for grouping them together in the first place.

My next quest: to rename the Canary Islands to something I prefer

Fair points Griff.  So do you think these rocks under our feet should be called British?  Or should other words be used?  As you've pointed out, they've been called different things over the centuries.  

As I said above, I'm not saying it has to be called 'British Isles'. Im saying that at some point in time someone felt the need to group these rocks together under one banner, while excluding other ones. Might have been geological (same type of rocks, maybe?), geographical, political, whatever. But they were grouped and I don't see why we should un-group them. While I personally don't agree that the 'British' bit denotes ownership of them all (as Britain clearly does not) at the time they were named perhaps it was accurate. Just not sure that the name needs to be changed. Remember, were not talking about the names of the countries. We're not saying Ireland is called Britian. We're saying that group of Isles is called something. It's like when a scientist discovers a new bug and names it after himself (let's call it the 'Pot Hale Beatle'!). We don't then tend to change the title of that beatle because we don't like the name of it or it doesn't sit well. Hmmm, perhaps a silly example but it's late.

I get that for political reasons an association with the word 'British' is problematic. But where do we stop with changing the names of things?

I realise I've skirted your question there, Pot Hale. Should it be called British Isles? I can't decide. Part of me things 'yes' because it was correct at the time of naming. But I do see that politically it can be a problem. But then, for me, it should only ever be used as a term to describe the group of rocks by geographers and beardy weirdies with their hiking boots and kneed length socks. It shouldn't be used in any other context.

Naming stuff is what we do, us humans.

Yes it is.  We name things to identify things using language.  And we choose why we want to identify things.  We say Michael because he's not John, and we say 'son' because he belongs to us and not a neighbour down the street.  So names are descriptive but also possessive.  

We say 'Santa Margherita' to honour Marguerite de Navarre, the sister of French King, Francis the 1st
We say 'New Amsterdam' to link us to our home, the Netherlands.
We say 'New York' to honour James II, Duke of York, and to firmly identify the territory as now not being French or Dutch but British.  
And none of us ever care to ask the natives what they called the territory before any of us arrived.

So, we see that names can change, that nothing remains fully static, and that names are once again often loaded with politics - after all, The British Empire stretched to include many an archipelago that included none of the British isles - not very descriptive of a group of north Atlantic isles but quite pointedly descriptive of Overlord Possessiveness of other isles, peninsulas, bays and shores.
So I'm happy with 'Ireland' for my island/and satellite islands.  The isles of Ireland.  The Irish isles.  I even love that other ancient name given to us by the Greeks/Romans that also named us without asking us what we named ourselves - Hibernia (Land of Eternal Winter)  The Celtic, mythic poetic side of me likes that.

The Hibernian Lions it is then.

SecretFly wrote:Naming stuff is what we do, us humans.

Yes it is.  We name things to identify things using language.  And we choose why we want to identify things.  We say Michael because he's not John, and we say 'son' because he belongs to us and not a neighbour down the street.  So names are descriptive but also possessive.  

We say 'Santa Margherita' to honour Marguerite de Navarre, the sister of French King, Francis the 1st
We say 'New Amsterdam' to link us to our home, the Netherlands.
We say 'New York' to honour James II, Duke of York, and to firmly identify the territory as now not being French or Dutch but British.  
And none of us ever care to ask the natives what they called the territory before any of us arrived.

So, we see that names can change, that nothing remains fully static, and that names are once again often loaded with politics - after all, The British Empire stretched to include many an archipelago that included none of the British isles - not very descriptive of a group of north Atlantic isles but quite pointedly descriptive of Overlord Possessiveness of other isles, peninsulas, bays and shores.
So I'm happy with 'Ireland' for my island/and satellite islands.  The isles of Ireland.  The Irish isles.  I even love that other ancient name given to us by the Greeks/Romans that also named us without asking us what we named ourselves - Hibernia (Land of Eternal Winter)  The Celtic, mythic poetic side of me likes that.

The Hibernian Lions it is then.

With you all the way on that, Fly. If I remember my Greek history class from all those years ago, the Hibernia name came from Greek naming, Iwernia - I think or something like that which derived from Celt Iweiriu which gave rise to eiru and Eire in Gaelic.

The 'Lions' themselves have had their name changed several times, so to ignore that shows total insensitivity to the reasons why. Countries and cities change their designations all the time such as Burma, Ceylon, Constantinople, St Petersburg etc. Despite what 'traditionalists' try to peddle, the Lions have not only changed their name but what they stand for. The original nickname 'Lions' is now little more than a brand drawn solely from the Royal coat of arms, which if abridged by dropping the 'British and Irish' adjectives would simply reinforce that the team is an English construct with a reference pre-dating Richard the Lionheart.

Still pretending you support them or have we moved to the truth yet?

The Great Aukster wrote:The 'Lions' themselves have had their name changed several times, so to ignore that shows total insensitivity to the reasons why. Countries and cities change their designations all the time such as Burma, Ceylon, Constantinople, St Petersburg etc. Despite what 'traditionalists' try to peddle, the Lions have not only changed their name but what they stand for. The original nickname 'Lions' is now little more than a brand drawn solely from the Royal coat of arms, which if abridged by dropping the 'British and Irish' adjectives would simply reinforce that the team is an English construct with a reference pre-dating Richard the Lionheart.

We've moved the conversation on a bit Aukster. We're just talking about the group of islands, not the rugby side.

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Naming stuff is what we do, us humans.

Yes it is.  We name things to identify things using language.  And we choose why we want to identify things.  We say Michael because he's not John, and we say 'son' because he belongs to us and not a neighbour down the street.  So names are descriptive but also possessive.  

We say 'Santa Margherita' to honour Marguerite de Navarre, the sister of French King, Francis the 1st
We say 'New Amsterdam' to link us to our home, the Netherlands.
We say 'New York' to honour James II, Duke of York, and to firmly identify the territory as now not being French or Dutch but British.  
And none of us ever care to ask the natives what they called the territory before any of us arrived.

So, we see that names can change, that nothing remains fully static, and that names are once again often loaded with politics - after all, The British Empire stretched to include many an archipelago that included none of the British isles - not very descriptive of a group of north Atlantic isles but quite pointedly descriptive of Overlord Possessiveness of other isles, peninsulas, bays and shores.
So I'm happy with 'Ireland' for my island/and satellite islands.  The isles of Ireland.  The Irish isles.  I even love that other ancient name given to us by the Greeks/Romans that also named us without asking us what we named ourselves - Hibernia (Land of Eternal Winter)  The Celtic, mythic poetic side of me likes that.

The Hibernian Lions it is then.

With you all the way on that, Fly.  If I remember my Greek history class from all those years ago, the Hibernia name came from Greek naming, Iwernia - I think or something like that which derived from Celt Iweiriu which gave rise to eiru and Eire in Gaelic.

Ah, OK. So just call it what you want or what you prefer?! Seems confusing, but there you go. To each his own.

Wow I never knew half of this stuff. Consider me educated.

Hibernia, Caledonia, Britannia... all the Roman names sound better anyway!

SecretFly wrote:Naming stuff is what we do, us humans.

Yes it is.  We name things to identify things using language.  And we choose why we want to identify things.  We say Michael because he's not John, and we say 'son' because he belongs to us and not a neighbour down the street.  So names are descriptive but also possessive.  

We say 'Santa Margherita' to honour Marguerite de Navarre, the sister of French King, Francis the 1st
We say 'New Amsterdam' to link us to our home, the Netherlands.
We say 'New York' to honour James II, Duke of York, and to firmly identify the territory as now not being French or Dutch but British.  
And none of us ever care to ask the natives what they called the territory before any of us arrived.

So, we see that names can change, that nothing remains fully static, and that names are once again often loaded with politics - after all, The British Empire stretched to include many an archipelago that included none of the British isles - not very descriptive of a group of north Atlantic isles but quite pointedly descriptive of Overlord Possessiveness of other isles, peninsulas, bays and shores.
So I'm happy with 'Ireland' for my island/and satellite islands.  The isles of Ireland.  The Irish isles.  I even love that other ancient name given to us by the Greeks/Romans that also named us without asking us what we named ourselves - Hibernia (Land of Eternal Winter)  The Celtic, mythic poetic side of me likes that.

The Hibernian Lions it is then.

So if we're changing the term for the collection of islands away from British Isles because it's either outdated or we don't like it, or it infers ownership and some sort of master/slave relationship, then I wonder why the USA doesn't change New Amsterdam or New York?  Are they not outdated?  Do they not infer ownership?  New York is not a British territory any more, after all.

Also, just to point out that the same guy who named Ireland Iwernia (Hibernia) had also named it mikris Brettanias - Little Britain!

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Personally I'd prefer to get away from the national identities which are now more divide than a banner of cohesion and just call it the Lions.
The English don't feel the need to brand their union of English, and since its really their Lions it makes sense to drop the troublesome British and Irish.

   

Always said the English should take more ownership of the Lions tours and let the rest of us get on with International  That's settled, the English to make up the bulk of the squad (99.9%), Gatland to represent the Welsh, some doctor or bus driver to represent the Scots, Best to represent the Irish Bench and the other .1%) - and that stops all future debate on the subject.

Waiting for some smart alec to say that the English don't even make up 99.9% of the England squad...

In terms of names, let's just go with The Standard Life Investments North-West Europe Reds. Then we can sneak Iceland and their Viking Thunder-Clap in on a technicality.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Agree Guns... so does cascough. He admits that he was aware before posting that the term offends people yet posted it anyway despite having "no idea why it would be considered offensive".

Perhaps to enlighten those with no idea on the 'why' part - it is the possessive nature of the term that implies the Isles are British. So just as the Scottish highlands are indisputably Scottish, and the English team represents England so the term 'British Isles' imply the Isles (including Ireland) belong to Britain and are referred to as such in British geography books but not Irish ones (i.e. books used in Ireland).

Ireland is the land of saints and scholars with a load of little people and the odd giant thrown in - which is appropriate as the group They Might be Giants explored the relationship between GB and Ireland in their song "You're not the boss of me now".

Yeah its pretty obvious that it was worded to be provocative. I think Cascough is being a bit stubborn in not wanting to admit that for some reason.

The term doesnt bother me at all though. I like a lot of British people a lot but I have never felt anything but Irish, a small part Australian or European.

Calling Ireland part of the British Isles is not going to change that however, I understand why it irritates people and I have no real problem with that either. It does suggest possession, on the other hand the sea between Ireland and England is called the Irish sea but we don't own it.

That said I think there is a good case for changing things when they become outdated. There are lots of examples of names in Ireland that were British or other wise that have been changed because they are outdated while some remain.

Daingean town in Offaly used to be called Philip's town after King Philip II king of Spain and Ireland. Cobh in Cork used to be called Queenstown.

The Great Aukster wrote:The 'Lions' themselves have had their name changed several times, so to ignore that shows total insensitivity to the reasons why. Countries and cities change their designations all the time such as Burma, Ceylon, Constantinople, St Petersburg etc. Despite what 'traditionalists' try to peddle, the Lions have not only changed their name but what they stand for. The original nickname 'Lions' is now little more than a brand drawn solely from the Royal coat of arms, which if abridged by dropping the 'British and Irish' adjectives would simply reinforce that the team is an English construct with a reference pre-dating Richard the Lionheart.

I have vague memories of reading (or probably hearing on QI) that they are leopards and not lions anyway

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Agree Guns... so does cascough. He admits that he was aware before posting that the term offends people yet posted it anyway despite having "no idea why it would be considered offensive".

Perhaps to enlighten those with no idea on the 'why' part - it is the possessive nature of the term that implies the Isles are British. So just as the Scottish highlands are indisputably Scottish, and the English team represents England so the term 'British Isles' imply the Isles (including Ireland) belong to Britain and are referred to as such in British geography books but not Irish ones (i.e. books used in Ireland).

Ireland is the land of saints and scholars with a load of little people and the odd giant thrown in - which is appropriate as the group They Might be Giants explored the relationship between GB and Ireland in their song "You're not the boss of me now".

Yeah its pretty obvious that it was worded to be provocative. I think Cascough is being a bit stubborn in not wanting to admit that for some reason.

The term doesnt bother me at all though. I like a lot of British people a lot but I have never felt anything but Irish, a small part Australian or European.

Calling Ireland part of the British Isles is not going to change that however, I understand why it irritates people and I have no real problem with that either. It does suggest possession, on the other hand the sea between Ireland and England is called the Irish sea but we don't own it.

That said I think there is a good case for changing things when they become outdated. There are lots of examples of names in Ireland that were British or other wise that have been changed because they are outdated while some remain.

Daingean town in Offaly used to be called Philip's town after King Philip II king of Spain and Ireland. Cobh in Cork used to be called Queenstown.

Should definitely change the name of the Irish Sea.  I mean, it's ridiculous right?  Talk about double standards

Edit: I also see what you did there Guns. Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales. An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England. Naughty.

Is Wales not part of England? Its fun to wind the Welsh up.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is Wales not part of England? Its fun to wind the Welsh up.

At least Wales knows where they stand. The Ruling elite in Scotland have no idea where to jump. EU, UK, Indy, Brexit, Indy EU, Single Market Brexit blah blah blah.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is Wales not part of England? Its fun to wind the Welsh up.

Double standards at its best! You've banged on at least 4 times about how casgough has been 'deliberately provocative' in his language yet do it yourself!

Griff wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Is Wales not part of England? Its fun to wind the Welsh up.

Double standards at its best!  You've banged on at least 4 times about how casgough has been 'deliberately provocative' in his language yet do it yourself!

No my problem is that he wont admit he is being provocative. I dont mind admitting I wind pretty much everyone up but especially Munster fans.

You've also got to understand as well though that the British Isles is the official name, with no controversy here and the widely held name elsewhere than Ireland.

I don't think he was being deliberately provocative. That part of the post was a side note to all but the biggest drama queens.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've also got to understand as well though that the British Isles is the official name, with no controversy here and the widely held name elsewhere than Ireland.

No controversy except to the people it offends so its OK.

Sounds good to me

There isn't controversy here though is there, so unlikely to be high on people's agenda is what I meant. As I said above the name of the Falklands is not controversial here but try it in Argentina. Similar to Suarez and Evra and negrito cultural differences etc can raise heckles but there has to be understanding from both points of view.

Griff wrote:

So if we're changing the term for the collection of islands away from British Isles because it's either outdated or we don't like it, or it infers ownership and some sort of master/slave relationship, then I wonder why the USA doesn't change New Amsterdam or New York?  Are they not outdated?  Do they not infer ownership?  New York is not a British territory any more, after all.

The way things are going it might be soon renamed New Damascus just to annoy the Great Orange Dictator.  But time, Griff.  Stick around for a few hundred more years, you never know what it might get renamed to.

BTW - It's not Native territory either.  No wonder the 'New' Natives are getting edgy about the new immigrants - there's history there of virtual genocide of the old to make way for the new.  

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK. But there's no harm done. They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?