smokebelch

I’ve just been flicking through the 2007 edition of the Chambers Dictionary. Compare and contrast the following two definitions:

Irishman or Irishwoman – someone who is Irish by birth or descent.
Englishman or Englishwoman – a male or female citizen of, or someone born in, England.

Now, I’ve had a quick check through some other nationalities and nobody else appears to be given this “descent” definition. Not even the Scots, who I would have thought define themselves like this just as much as the Irish. Perhaps Chambers are simply reflecting US usage – where it’s quite possible to describe oneself as “Irish” despite never having been anywhere near Ireland [after all, the same dictionary gives two definitions of 'Asian' - one being a citizen of or someone born in an Asian country, the other being 'of Asian descent']. But if this is the case, how come other nationalities who have made a big migratory impact on the US don’t get the same definition? [Yup, just checked. A 'Finn' is a "native or citizen of Finland". So if you were born in New York and have Irish great-great-great-grandparents [the definition doesn't define a limit to 'descent'] you can be Irish. But if you were born in Michigan of Finnish parents, you’re stuck with “American.”

Is that how it works over here? Born in Ireland of English parents=Irish. Born in England of Irish parents=Irish OR English. You choose. I think that distinction is bad for both the Irish and the English. It imposes a kind of limiting ontological racial definition [I know it's a 'choice' to define yourself as Irish when you "aren't" but it's still an 'imposed choice'] on the Irish and denies the heritage of people of English or Scottish descent who were born on the island of Ireland. It creates a muddy thinking which leads to this kind of misguided, but understandable, nonsense.

By the way – I made a flippant comment about the Isle of Man while discussing the different definitions of “British”, “Great Britain” and “United Kingdom” and I was reminded of this because I tried desperately to avoid the horrendous phrase “British Isles” in the paragraphs above and fell back on the imprecise “over here”. So, seriously, if none of us are happy with “British Isles” [and we clearly aren't] where DOES all this leave the Isle of Man? [and, I believe, the Channel Islands, which also have the same status as not being part of "Great Britain" and therefore not part of the "United Kingdom" but are still "British" in its non-constitutional sense.]

I’ll continue to use the tortuous “island of Ireland”, simply because it’s an undisputed geographical fact [although a Catholic friend of mine in Northern Ireland does habitually use the word "Ireland" to refer to "over the border in the Republic", even though she also describes herself as "Irish", so it's obviously pretty easy for definitions to slip in everyday use] and stick to the very precise definitions of “Great Britain” and “United Kingdom” [although I think "British" nowadays has a looser definition than "from Great Britain." Unionists in Northern Ireland seem happy to call themselves "British" and I'm sure the Isle of Man definition of choice would be "Manx" and then "British". And I'm happy to use "these islands" where the context is obvious. And where it isn't obvious, just remember you're talking about two different countries so refer to them as such.

[On which point, what's with the adverts on UK commercial television with "this offer does not apply in the Republic of Ireland" disclaimers. Why the hell would anyone think it did?]