• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    I see no problem I’m enjoying my seaside property. Although Coventry also survives so it’s not all roses.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s kind of a shitty name to insist upon given our history with Ireland though, isn’t it? Like, regardless of what it was called, we can call the archipelago “the British and Irish Isles” or something if we want to.

        Personally I reckon we should call it Maughold’s Isles. “British and Irish Isles” is fine, if a little wordy. “Islands of the North Atlantic” is one I see floated every so often, but it’s miserably generic and even longer. So I suggest we use the patron saint of the Isle of Man. It’s in between Britain and Ireland and technically not part of the UK. Maughold himself was a pirate who tried to play a practical joke on St Patrick, so he’s a bit of a scoundrel, and it’s exactly the kind of silly trivia that we like so much here

        • hitmyspot
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          As an Irish person, geographically, it does. Politically it does not. Given this is a geographical map, rather than political, it’s appropriate.

          I wouldn’t want to see the typical map if great Britain and Northern Ireland with ROI missing. I zoomed in to see my town, which luckily is above water.

            • hitmyspot
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Geography also describes features, like islands. These islands are named the British isles.

              Youre talking about coordinates for location, not geography.

              Naming can be political, but is not inherently so.

        • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It does, especially given the name predates the country by 2-3 thousand years; it’s not exactly optimal but in reality “These Islands” is the only alternative and something is needed to refer to them from outside the islands.

          • Squizzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Except it was a politicised term used by an occupying force to strengthen their claim over our lands. Apologies if the suffering of our people, decimation of our language and culture and not to mention crippling genocide should be tolerated by use because “British and Irish and isles” is too wordy for you.

            Ill take south eastern icelandic archipelago if you would prefer.

            • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              It wasn’t, however the association with Great Britain is undeniable, especially when Lesser Britain doesn’t even refer to Ireland any more (in Roman times it did), but Brittany, however “British Isles” was in use by the Greeks (at least Prettanic Isles) before even that - well before the union of England and Scotland, never mind Ireland’s conquest.

              Personally I’m happy with Atlantic Isles/Islands/Archipelago as I agree the term isn’t great due to the implicit association, but it’s not like it was something just made up by colonists.

              • Squizzy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                I didnt say it was created by colonists, it was however pushed as a term to be used to strengthen the view in eyebof the public, this was a specific policy noted by Churchill.

  • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    Feel like this would be a little more legible with slightly less towns on it. Can barely see the old borders there are so many names everywhere.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s extremely high resolution, just have to zoom in. Anyway the town’s useful because you can’t really work out where anything is otherwise.

      Although I’ve got to admit I’m not quite sure why they have tiny villages on there it’s useful but I’m not quite sure why the decision was made.

      • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, sorry, that’s what I meant. I don’t really know the difference between a town and a tiny village I just meant there are way too many names.

        Could’ve done with a few less to make it a bit clearer to read.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What if Dutch and Norwegian dikes and canals were combined with Hong Kong style architecture - but everyone had British, Irish and Scottish citizenships

    [EDIT: My misspelling was ghhheeeey]

  • Skua@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Oh neat, I have a book by the creator of this but had no idea about their website

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    I saw a timelapse of continental movement once. Europe is basically what polynesia or similiar areas would look like if they were a few 100m higher.

  • NigelFrobisher
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s some nice farmland you have. Be a shame if something happened to it.