I have to say I’ve come across the use of Eire much more frequently among American than British friends. It seems some people think the Irish will find it more endearing. To me it sounds a little silly, as if you don’t know the name in English.
I’m sure Ruadh will be along to clarify for us soon, but if we are going to use 'Eire", aren’t we supposed to write it Éire. I seem to remember that she posted that ‘Eire’ means something different.
Well I’m sorry it offends you so, but you have to admit that it’s hardly the greatest mistake in the history of national relations is it?
Also, and purely from personal experience, I can’t actually think of many people who do refer to Eire rather than Ireland. Are so sure it isn’t a rather outdated figure of speech?
Like Andy and Gary, I can’t say I’ve noticed the widespread use of ‘Eire’ by British speakers. Indeed, to paraphrase you, I rather suspect that I’ve never, ever, heard a British person describe your country as Eire when speaking English. It does sometimes get used in writing, but invariably because the writer, far from showing the insensitivity jjimm complains about in the OP, actually thinks that they’re respecting the cultural differences of the Irish. It is those writers who are most sympathetic to you who are most likely to make this ‘mistake’. That’s the thing about political correctness; so often it is just ‘patronising, irritating and simply wrong’.
Yes it should be éire (sorry I can’t get a capital e, damn my computer skills 
), not Eire and it is really only used when you are speaking the Irish language.
My point was, in my OP, I referred to people who live on the island of Great Britain as British, and not those who live on the island of Ireland.
On the same topic, I think the following statement is incorrect:
The passports they have are UK passports, not British ones. The term ‘Britain’ is a convenient catch-all in the way sirjamesp has used it, and not actually correct. See earlier post in this thread re. definition of United Kingdom.
Loyalists of course have the right refer to themselves as whatever they like; I however did not refer to them in the post. And herein lies part of the problem… does a Northern Irish nationalist therefore have the right to refer to themselves as a “citizen of the occupied 6 counties of the Republic of Ireland”? I personally think this is divisive and has no pragmatic use, but a lot of them would see it this way.
Finally:
My fiancée is an Irish speaker and comments that Éire is never in fact used by Irish speakers either - however, I think this dates back to the time of the Irish constitution being drawn up, and later dropped. So in this case it’s bad PR by the Irish government, and not us Brits’ fault, though I have heard a great many people in England who mistakenly use this term, albeit for all the ‘right’ (PC) reasons.
I don’t believe it - I just speculated. I was educated during the years of dear old Mrs T and Irish history was not high on our syllabus, or indeed at all. I wondered at the time if this was deliberate and wanted to know what other people thought, hence my OP.
As for burying the hatchet, I don’t think there’s one to be buried: I have apologised to Mr Kumquat for misquoting him, and I believe he has merely misinterpreted my terminology, and I forgive him for this.
The passports are British in that they say “British Citizen” in the Nationality section.
Because, in UK law, they are ‘British citizens’ and have ‘British nationality’.
That is what I am saying. It is not illogical for someone from Northern Ireland to call themselves British since they are, in fact, British citizens.
Less deliberate than necessay, I’d suggest. Out of interest, how many countries include much history of other nations in their school syllabi? Schools can only dedicate a fixed amount of time to each subject, which does mean that there’s going to be huge areas that they have to leave uncovered. I’d imagine that British schooling is very lacking on Irish history, but equally so with regards to France, Germany, Russia and so on.
I stand utterly corrected on the nationality issue.
So there you go, if I’m that ignorant of my own nationality, how can I expect my compatriots to know about the country next door to them?
Having said that, Tony Blair is not the Prime Minister of Ireland (as was said to a colleague by a senior businessman in Basingstoke recently).
Of course not - he’s President, isn’t he[sup]1[/sup]?
[sup]1[/sup][sub]The above comment is meant as a joke at the style of Mr Blair’s government, and in no way should be taken as an insult to the people of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the United States, or Burkina Faso for that matter[/sub]
In Irish schools, we were taught a lot about English history, and I really do think that Irish history should be taught more in English schools as England had a lot to do with Ireland’s history. I mean if it wasn’t for English we could only imagine what Ireland would be like today :).
I would guess that the discrepancy arises because Britain has had a huge effect on Irish history (hence British history finds its way into Irish schools), but Ireland has not had a huge effect on British history.
Hmmm… now that I re-read that sentence, it seems incredibly arrogant - but it isn’t meant to be. I can’t think of a better way of phrasing it, though.
I’m trying to get at the fact that Irish history is too tightly tied up with parts of British history for the latter to be ignored in Irish schools. These same events, however, have probably not been amongst the large factors that have influenced British history, so will struggle to find their way into British history lessons.
Mind you, as I pointed out earlier, modern Northern Irish history does feature in British classrooms now.
Here is what the National Curriculum for England has to say on the subject.
All 7-11 year olds are required to study the following aspects of British history (for Key Stage 2):
The history taught to all 11-14 year olds must include the following (Key Stage 3):
One could argue that this is evidence of the British government encouraging the teaching of Irish history in English schools.
Moreover, my guess would be that Irish history is, if anything, overrepresented in English schools. The criticism which is now most frequently made about history teaching in England is that schools are concentrating on a narrowing ranch of topics, in particular, either the dictators of the 1930s or the nineteenth and twentieth century British history. Within the latter, the ‘Irish problem’ is almost always a major theme, not least because astute teachers realise that this is one topic which has very obvious contemporary consequences. What easier way is there to convince the kids that history is ‘relevant’ than to teach them about Ireland?
I always thought that Éire was the official name used during the “Irish Free State” period. I know many WWII era works refer to the country as Éire.
But, as someone pointed out, we don’t call other countries by their “native” name unless their government makes a concerted effort to have it changed in the foreign media. People still get confused between “Burma” and “Myanmar” for instance, even though “Burma” was officially dropped over a dozen years ago.
Article 4 of the Irish Constitution:
Note that the official name in English is not “The Republic of Ireland” as many seem to believe.
And yes, I have heard numerous British people mistakenly refer to it as “Eire”. In fact, as Andy referred to earlier, I’ve hollered at Dopers about it before
Gotcha, Corky. No problem, and I will use “Ireland” where there is no chance of confusion henceforth.
To clarify the “100 years” bit, what I implied by it was that the English language prior to 1900 tended to use Anglicized names for other places (Poland, not Polszka; Leghorn, not Livorno; Canton, not Kwangtung), and has not since. The Republic of Ireland dates from what, 1935? 1947?, with the Free State from 1922 – after that date, in any case.
I took Burma as an interesting parallel. Yes, the nation calls itself Myanmar, and P.C. usage would use that name in English. But Burmah and then Burma has over 300 years of English usage, and seems to be the general usage for the land area occupied by the country of Myanmar, and often for the nation as well. Siam (vs. Thailand) seems to be a similar set of names.
I’m English, live in the US, and I’m well aware of the history of Ireland and it’s status as a nation. I call Northern Ireland Northern Ireland(!), but I used to think it was correct to call Ireland “Eire” because when I was about five that was the name that was printed on the country in my (English language,) atlas. I remember it now. Nobody in the US knew what I was talking about so I switched then, and also after being educated through the World Cup, of course.
OK now that we’ve got nomenclature out of the way back to the OP.
Here’s a few questions for the Brits.
- Are you thought about Daniel O Connell in school?
If not I would ask why not? Catholic Emancipation should be covered IMO.
-
Are you thought at all about Charles Stuart Parnell. A Irish MP in Westminster. He caused a lot of hassle for the British Gov. and would probably merit a mention.
-
Are you thought about the The War of Independence 1919-1922. No-brainer this one.
There are a lot more examples of Irish History being relevant to British History. Ireland and the UK have been intertwined for a very long time now. Irishmen sat in the House of Commons till early last century (and still do if you class the NI unionist as Irish 
)
In Ireland we are thought a fair bit of British history but most of it is to help in the understanding of Irish History. Cromwell is a good example. We are thought about his actions at home as well as his little jaunt over here for a bit a sightseeing He is put into context somewhat (there was a anti-Cromwell slant to the way I was thought it in Scholl but at least they did try to fill in some of the blanks)
I have meet a lot of English people who didn’t have a clue about Irish History and the events that led to the recent troubles, BTW Fenian bombs in the UK are nothing new. Most Irish Joe Smoes would IMO know a lot more about British History than visa versa. This is because we have more access to British history that they do ours e.g. I turn on my TV and get CH.4 and BBC2 which carry a lot of high class documentaries about British History. *Elizabeth * and * The Six Wives of Henry VIII * being recent examples. AFAIK only some Welsh people have access to RTE1 or 2 and their output. Add to that newspapers/ books and TV news.
Reading back this post is a bit all over the place but there are too many people ringing me at the mo. to have a good editing session so I’ll just post and be damned. Be nice