What I don't understand is, why is this a big deal? Isn't it like athletes from the US flying individual state flags. I mean, I'm sorry, but Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are all part of the UK, just like Alabama, Indiana, and Wyoming are all part of the US, they're representing a single nation after all. The UK is a country and countries are represented in the Olympic Games. I understand that China's reasons behind it are political, I think that's stupid, but I don't see why they were allowed to fly individual flags in the first place. I've never seen someone in the US fly an individual state flag, or Canada for the provinces or Ireland for their provinces, all of which have individual flags. So why is it such a big deal here?

Which brings me back to my original point. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales are all part of Great Britain. That is undeniably a fact. And I'm not sure they'll ever exist outside of Great Britain (what do I know?). But their national identities are all very much tied to their country of origin.

What I don't understand is, why is this a big deal? Isn't it like athletes from the US flying individual state flags. I mean, I'm sorry, but Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are all part of the UK, just like Alabama, Indiana, and Wyoming are all part of the US, they're representing a single nation after all. The UK is a country and countries are represented in the Olympic Games.

I understand that China's reasons behind it are political, I think that's stupid, but I don't see why they were allowed to fly individual flags in the first place. I've never seen someone in the US fly an individual state flag, or Canada for the provinces or Ireland for their provinces, all of which have individual flags. So why is it such a big deal here?

Quebec is not ruled by Canada.

Also Sum1, that's not completely true. Certain areas of the US have strong identities from before the US was developed. Look at New Orleans and Louisiana and the large Creole/French culture that is still there from when the French were in that area, the same can be said for Southern California and the strong Hispanic presence or the Northern states, like North Dakota especially that have a strong Canadian influence. In parts of New Orleans, French is still spoken, and in Southern California Spanish has been spoken for quite some time, not just due to recent immigration. Just a heads up.

I figured it was something like that, since I know England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales were at one point different countries and they still maintain separate national identities, but still, to some extent, it seems silly.

Also Sum1, that's not completely true. Certain areas of the US have strong identities from before the US was developed. Look at New Orleans and Louisiana and the large Creole/French culture that is still there from when the French were in that area, the same can be said for Southern California and the strong Hispanic presence or the Northern states, like North Dakota especially that have a strong Canadian influence. In parts of New Orleans, French is still spoken, and in Southern California Spanish has been spoken for quite some time, not just due to recent immigration. Just a heads up.

You can add Hawaii in there as well. There still is a sovereign movement here to a degree and people born and raised here identify with Hawaiian culture and ideas even if they don't have Hawaiian blood. Most are Americans first but the Hawaiian culture is important.

Country of origin?! How is Britain Ireland's country of origin?

"Northern Ireland, Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales are all part of Great Britain. That is undeniably a fact."



IRELAND? There happens to be a country called the Republic of Ireland. It's NOT under British rule.

As for "Northern Ireland", that's an area of Ireland that was colonized and settled by people from Britain. Yes it's under British power. It's a very controversial topic.

It is not like the US states. They were all set up as states of the US or didn't last very long as independent states before they became states of the US. They did not have a long history as independent states. They did not have their own languages.

Ireland, Scotland and Wales were fully developed nations for a long time before any of them became part of England's united kingdom. England took them over and made them part of its united kingdom, but that doesn't mean those old identities are lost.

"Northern Ireland" is a part of the Irish nation taken over by England. Scotland and Wales are nations. Some people will tell you that Tibet's independent nationality doesn't matter and that it's just part of China. Well it's not. And "Northern Ireland", Scotland and Wales are not just parts of Britain.

See, I was gonna answer on the first comments about the six counties of Ulster, but then you took the words right out of my mouth yourself. Whether any of us like it or not, Northern Ireland remains a part of Great Britain. I'd say, "Blame Michael Collins," but someone already got there.

Yeah, that's something I've always wondered about. Inasmuch as England and Scotland became the "United Kingdom" after James VI of Scotland (James Ist of the UK) ascended to the throne after Elizabeth I died childless... wouldn't that mean that, technically, the Scots took over England? I mean, I know how his grand-mother was English, being Henry VII's daughter and all, hence the whole thing with his mother being imprisoned for most of her life and all that. But, pretty much, I've always thought it was strange that history has it that England took over Scotland when, by all accounts, it's a Scot who ascended to the English throne....

Fair enough, but how long after the fact does "we were invaded" ceases to matter? I can't speak to Tibet. They had voted for their independence, so I say they should have it since they clearly want it.

I've never been in Northern Ireland and won't pretend to understand the various political movements that exist there.

So, strictly speaking as a French Canadian, descendant of those who remained after Great Britain (again, that nasty amalgamation) won the Seven Years' War against France and we (meaning "New France") were offered up by way of payment. Speaking as a descendant of those who remained after every French-speaking person who could afford it hightailed it back to France. Speaking as a descendant of those who remained after the United States won their War of Independence and we got "invaded" by the Loyalists who wished to remain "British" citizens. Speaking as a descendant of those who stayed when no economical or real social benefit was offered for their continued presence in this land.

When do we stop saying it was our land before they took it from us? The Natives were here before us. You don't hear very many of my fellow Quebecers wonder whether we should give them their independence, whether we should give them back their land.

And, what? Are we owed anything because, for centuries, being French and Catholic barred you from public service, from better health care and better jobs?

The past is a nasty place for all of us who were, in one way or another, colonized. What do I know of the complexities that remain elsewhere? All I know is I understand feelings of national identity that aren't necessarily tied to the figure that appears on our currency.