John Cantelo
Well-known member
Oddly, the quote attributed to me in post 16, was in fact made by KenM in post 15.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
British and Irish..or just British? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KenM
- Start date
Brian2
Well-known member
I list Britain (excluding Ireland and IOM) but respect that "your list" is excatly that and you're free to pick where and what you list. All that's required is clarity in your listings.
I have to say if I had more time and money I'm sure I'd be listing Ireland and IOM too especially with the cracking birds they've been connecting with lately.
I have to say if I had more time and money I'm sure I'd be listing Ireland and IOM too especially with the cracking birds they've been connecting with lately.
Allen S. Moore
Well-known member
Sorry John! I have looked back and cannot explain that, unless I failed to edit out the first line of post 15, but then I wouldn't have expected it to be highlighted in red.
Allen
Last edited:
Steven Astley
Well-known member
It makes much more sense as well as being zoogeographically coherent to list the British Isles, an archipelago about whose limits nobody is in doubt.
Agree with this. It should be about the natural world and physical boundaries like seas and mountains that have been here for millions of years not some recent political boundary like separating N Ireland and Ireland. Might aswell include Gibralter if you going to split N Ireland and Ireland.
If I was in Spain I would do an Iberian peninsular list.
Agree with this. It should be about the natural world and physical boundaries like seas and mountains that have been here for millions of years not some recent political boundary like separating N Ireland and Ireland. Might aswell include Gibralter if you going to split N Ireland and Ireland.
If I was in Spain I would do an Iberian peninsular list.
Xenospiza
Distracted
The Channel is less than 10,000 years old...
Not using political boundaries would make listing (other than world listing) a bit of a problem for anyone not living on an island (try drawing a natural border around the Netherlands!)
Foxy
Well-known member
I wonder if the Germans feel free to add a few extra countries to their 'Germany and our neighbours list' (like adding the Rosefinch that visited your neighbours bird table to your garden list on the basis that you could see it from your garden.) Maybe Poland had all the rarities in 1939: suddenly it all makes sense!
Phil Andrews
It's only Rock and Roller but I like it
Isnt that just a little bit racist Foxy? I am sure some might view British birders listing Ireland as clinging on to an imperialist past.
Steven Astley
Well-known member
True but we are talking about people doing a British list who are lucky, in listing terms, to live on an island.
If I lived in Netherlands I probably wouldn't bother doing a Netherlands list personally. I don't do a greater manchester, english list or northern england list.
Maybe I'd just do europe, western paleartic, looking at map there's something called plain of france
I wouldn't be to precise about borders as would only be list for me.
But ill let you off for your dutch list
The point is if there is clearly defined natural borders then they should be used IMO.
But end of day people can list what they want.
aythya_hybrid
real name Jonathan Dean
I may have misunderstood, but I think that was precisely the point Foxy was trying to make.
I may just be a cynic, but I can't help thinking that much of this noble sounding talk of "zoogeograhic" regions is simply cover for a peculiarly post-imperial desire among Brits (which is by no means unique to birders) to frame Ireland as in some way not "properly" foreign.
Or, put differently, i'm always struck by how difficult it seems to be for a lot of British birders (and perhaps also Brits in general) to fully accept that Ireland is a foreign country, just like Belgium (for instance).
Steven Astley
Well-known member
Your being a cynic.
British isles list makes sense.
British list, not including ireland makes sense.
But spliting ireland up doesn't make sense to me.
We are closer culturally and language wise to ireland. If I was a super keen irish or british twitcher it would make sense to add either ireland or britain to create a british isles list, nothing imperialistic about it.
KenM
Well-known member
I don't think Belgium and Ireland are a good comparison! It's difficult for me as an anglophile to view Ireland as a foreign country...not from just a (personal root perspective or a post empirical one).
Such has been the gene/fiscal/language/historical/military and trade link over centuries...probably more so than any other country...It's no wonder ''yer average Brit'' would have difficulty putting Ireland on a par with Belgium or any other continental region come to that.
If the Scots attempt to emulate the Irish..followed by the Welsh..I'd have to de-tick so many birds..I'd only have my London list to cling to (sub-400), but with London expanding..who knows where the boundaries might end up.
chowchilla
Well-known member
The point really is that you can include Ireland on a list which is a Britain (or more accurately UK) and Ireland list if you so choose. If you include the IOM it becomes a British Isles list. But it is not a British list.I don't think Belgium and Ireland are a good comparison! It's difficult for me as an anglophile to view Ireland as a foreign country...not from just a (personal root perspective or a post empirical one).
Such has been the gene/fiscal/language/historical/military and trade link over centuries...probably more so than any other country...It's no wonder ''yer average Brit'' would have difficulty putting Ireland on a par with Belgium or any other continental region come to that.
If the Scots attempt to emulate the Irish..followed by the Welsh..I'd have to de-tick so many birds..I'd only have my London list to cling to (sub-400), but with London expanding..who knows where the boundaries might end up.
The 'cultural' arguments I've seen on this thread would see Australia, New Zealand etc, and for that matter the UK's external territories included too: all of which I'm sure everybody on this thread can name without looking up. If you want to keep such an eccentric list, go right ahead, but it still isn't a British list.
Using 'natural' boundaries is similarly odd: what about the Channel Islands? I have an opportunity to do a three month contract in Christmas Island next year, which is territorially Australian but biologically Asian. I will add anything I see there to my Australian list because it is part of Australia. Simple. Sean Dooley in The Big Twitch included birds he saw there; on Norfolk Island (out in the Pacific); and Saibai and Boigu, just off the coast of PNG. Sticking to political boundaries as I see it, removes any ambiguity.
Farnboro John
Well-known member
It has always amused me how some Irish birders (not many - most are pretty relaxed types) have difficulty with being part of the British Isles. I've even heard daft talk about renaming them the Celtic Isles - nonsense not least because most of the current settlers are Anglo-Saxon and Norman: never gonna happen.
And such talk is no more sensible than suggesting Britain and Ireland - sorry, the UK, IOM and Eire - have a choice about being part of Europe (and I don't mean the EU). Look at a map.
Europe has natural boundaries, they are called the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, Mediterranean and Black Seas, and the Caucasus mountains. Nobody has ever had difficulty referring to "European Russia" in the knowledge that beyond the Caucasus one is in Asia.
Political boundaries shift - I don't bother keeping a Hampshire list but I am aware that Dorset has stolen part of our land in living memory. Shocking. Zoogeography is near constant, sea levels and volcanism notwithstanding.
John
And such talk is no more sensible than suggesting Britain and Ireland - sorry, the UK, IOM and Eire - have a choice about being part of Europe (and I don't mean the EU). Look at a map.
Europe has natural boundaries, they are called the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, Mediterranean and Black Seas, and the Caucasus mountains. Nobody has ever had difficulty referring to "European Russia" in the knowledge that beyond the Caucasus one is in Asia.
Political boundaries shift - I don't bother keeping a Hampshire list but I am aware that Dorset has stolen part of our land in living memory. Shocking. Zoogeography is near constant, sea levels and volcanism notwithstanding.
John
lewis20126
Well-known member
Agree with FB. I've been through this on previous threads. As FB says, you only have to look at a map to understand why a "British Isles" list if preferable to listing within an unstable political entitity.
cheers, alan
cheers, alan
mountain man
Guest
Well if this same old boring argument is going to get all ridiculous, inhabitants of the whole of the island of Ireland are more than entitled to tick birds in Great Britain, seeing as it was the Dalriada migration from modern day County Antrim into south-west Scotland that constituted the first 'invasion' between Ireland and Britain. It was the Dalriada who converted the Picts to Christianity.
So historically the Irish have a right to tick birds in Great Britain. And if Scotland achieves independence then they can still tick Scottish birds, but not Welsh or English.
Alternatively, you could just say b0ll0cks to the whole thing, stick your pathetic lists up your arse and just revel in the fact that these birds are crossing oceans and deserve to be enjoyed for that reason, whether they're on Inishmore, Texel or in Lichtenstein.
Also, I often see a correlation between people who are so vehemently against vile imperialist Brits going over to Ireland to tick birds, and them being the same part-time twitchers who "don't do Scilly, Shetland, Orkney or Hebs." Cop out cowards!
And finally, before this crops up somewhere (it probably has already), no it isn't cheaper to go to America and tick sh1t-loads of Kingbirds than it is to go to Galway and tick (or dip) one.
There you go. Now I'm off upstairs to tend to a screaming baby.
Tom
So historically the Irish have a right to tick birds in Great Britain. And if Scotland achieves independence then they can still tick Scottish birds, but not Welsh or English.
Alternatively, you could just say b0ll0cks to the whole thing, stick your pathetic lists up your arse and just revel in the fact that these birds are crossing oceans and deserve to be enjoyed for that reason, whether they're on Inishmore, Texel or in Lichtenstein.
Also, I often see a correlation between people who are so vehemently against vile imperialist Brits going over to Ireland to tick birds, and them being the same part-time twitchers who "don't do Scilly, Shetland, Orkney or Hebs." Cop out cowards!
And finally, before this crops up somewhere (it probably has already), no it isn't cheaper to go to America and tick sh1t-loads of Kingbirds than it is to go to Galway and tick (or dip) one.
There you go. Now I'm off upstairs to tend to a screaming baby.
Tom
Last edited:
Surely in bird listing terms "British" is a geographical rather than political term so means the "British Isles" which include Ireland. Its a distinct geographical region that makes sense - comparable to say Iberia or Scandinavia. The fact that Britain and Ireland are two seperate nations is irrelevant.
The trouble is people get confused and touchy about geographical and political terms. Its like when some Brits say they aren't European because they don't like the EU. Er, sorry but being European is historical and geographical fact not something you can choose to be or not be!
The trouble is people get confused and touchy about geographical and political terms. Its like when some Brits say they aren't European because they don't like the EU. Er, sorry but being European is historical and geographical fact not something you can choose to be or not be!
Jan-Paul Charteris
Sussex birder and budding moth enthusiast
This is clearly rubbish, or the same imperialistic hangers-on would also tick things in the Falklands and Gibraltar and call it a "United Kingdom" list. United Kingdom is an imperialistic term, Britain just derives from the name the Romans gave to these islands, including Ireland
So, the use of the term British Isles is not imperialistic, Roman Catholicism was brought to Ireland by the same people who brought the term Brittania. The term county is actually Anglo-Norman, but doesn't seem to cause any issues when "County Galway" or "County Cork" is referred to
I'm always struck by the fact that similar venom isn't thrown at examples of field guides which cover "Britain and Europe, including North Africa and the Middle East" - no reference is made to slavery or holy wars at the inclusion of Africa - it is simple a biogeographical decision...it's basically the same as a list or fieldguide or whatever that covers Britain and Ireland. Let's be honest, the only difference is that it doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers historically or politically, but that's not the point is it? That's not why twitchers may travel to see something in Ireland
If any listers were being imperialistic they would make a point of counting Northern Ireland but not Eire, which would make no sense biogeographically and would refer purely to the political situation which has caused so many issues over the years
Last edited:
chowchilla
Well-known member
Recent, and quite extensive, DNA analysis clearly shows that the vast majority of 'English' people are of the same er, 'Celtic' stock as the Irish and Welsh. Anglo-Saxon/Danish/Viking (at least in England) DNA makes at most about 25% of the genetic make-up of the English (predominantly East Anglia and Yorkshire) but it's often much less. Norman DNA is completely negligible, less than 2%. Less so the Scots, the Vikings did a pretty thoroughly job of killing every man alive in Shetland and Orkney and in other parts of the north of Scotland and carting the women back to Norway and Iceland where there are lots of Celtic DNA 'markers' from their Pictish ancestors. When they came back to settle they spread their seed far and wide.
But I digress... I agree 100% that 'the British Isles' is a perfectly sensible term for the isles that constitute Britain and Ireland.
Belated Edit: but I should perhaps add that I don't agree with what you say about natural boundaries because Britain is criss-crossed by them: mountains, rivers and estuaries; that bit of sea that separates Hampshire from the IOW (wasn't that Hampshire's once?); and artificial boundaries such as motorways and the like. Most people who travel keep lists for the countries they visit; I find it hard to believe that they agonise over which bits to include on that list and which to not, based on natural boundaries. Most birders acknowledge political boundaries even if they claim not to.
Last edited:
chowchilla
Well-known member
Actually I find this thread completely fascinating. Just seeing how angry people get over it.
Jan-Paul Charteris
Sussex birder and budding moth enthusiast
So me being half Danish will make me about as popular as Baggers modelling his t-shirt in Ireland following that post
Similar threads
