Was It For This?

at

unnamed

unnamedThe telly, last night.

Gerard writes:

“For when a man no longer confuses  himself with the definition of himself that others have given him, he is at once universal and unique” – Alan W Watts.

(Pic2: Ger Ryan)

Sponsored Link

43 thoughts on “Was It For This?

    1. Tony

      It’s not the British Isles, it’s the English Isles. And it’s Cromwell’s Canal not ‘the Shannon’. Silly Paddies and their pixie-headed notions!

    2. classter

      Keep up Dave, even the UK govt doesn’t use the term British Isles anymore.

      Letting go of silly tribal hatreds doesn’t have to mean giving up on all basic self-respect.

    1. classter

      Wikipedia – facts?

      National Geographic, the UK govt, the Irish govt, the Guardian & a host of other geographical organisations don;t use the term because it is an ambiguous (do the Channel Islands which are not part of the geographical archipelago count?), archaic & contentious.

    1. classter

      You didn’t learn the term in an Irish geography class.

      Apart from which, it is arguable whether it is a geographical term.
      It was coined in the 16th Century as part of an attempt to help justify the Tudor conquests of Ireland.

      1. munkifisht

        Island: Old English īegland, from īeg ‘island’ (from a base meaning ‘watery, watered’) + land. The change in the spelling of the first syllable in the 16th century was due to association with the unrelated word isle.

        Kinda don’t understand your point. The source of a word is no basis for it’s current day definition.

  1. Gonzo

    Maybe we should start using the more politically palpable IONA, Islands of The North Atlantic, term when referring to the British Isles. Also Broadsheet, next time you are considering manufacturing outrage please do a google search.

    1. classter

      There is no real need for any term – the UK & Ireland is shorter than the British Isles – and would get the same point across more clearly & less contentiously.

        1. nefD6

          10 characters versus 12, it is shorter. I can play the pick a parameter on which I choose to judge something game too.

  2. Demon

    We could offer to share the name. These islands could be the Irish Isles for the next 400 years, then they can have their turn again, all things being equal and us all not having been swamped by the rising waters of climate change.

    1. Cluster

      Both are named from a British perspective. The own the isles and the differentiator for that sea is that it separates Britain from Ireland.

  3. rory

    If BS/Gerard believes the advice in the Watts quote, why are they bothered by the definition of Ireland that others have given it? And why do they put said quote in a blog post that is encouraging others to be bothered by same?

  4. scottser

    I had a proper ‘was it for this’ moment on friday going to the picnic. I used that one drive yoke on the new phone. The engish accent telling me to take the exit for ‘sill droyched – celbridge’ as i came off the n4 to ‘slih-go’ was nearly as bad as the merry fupn dance it led me on the back roads of kildare.

    and yeh, we did a cool gig, ill throw up an oul link soon.

  5. Owen

    The area is called the British Isles. No level of pointless uploads will change that. It is a group of islands made up of Great Britain, Ireland and thousands of smaller islands. The sooner you accept this the better.

      1. Owen

        That is a country that has changed its name to Zimbabwe. The British Isles has not been changed. That is the name of the archipelago. I’m not making it up.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie