@johl good points. Never thought about the colonizer's language aspect, thank you for pointing this out!
That said, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to reference a classic:
🔲 🇬🇧 English (traditional)
🔲 🇺🇸 English (simplified)
@seachaint I bumped into a chap on G+ one time who was absolutely insistant that Ireland was not part of the British Isles, and that using that term was an offence against all Irish.
That ... isn't a well-supported case (there are numerous references to BI among Irish sources, and none that I could find clearly articulating an alternative) but it does reflect how contentious language and symbols can be.
There are certainly numerous other instances (as this thread is highlighting).
@seachaint That said and understood, how is the archipelligo as a whole referred to then?
Etymology is as always interesting if not currently prescriptive (I'm using "Briton" as "British" derives from it):
c. 1200, "a Celtic native of the British Isles," from Anglo-French Bretun, from Latin Brittonem (nominative Britto, misspelled Brito in MSS) "a member of the tribe of the Britons," from *Britt-os, the Celtic name of the Celtic inhabitants of Britain and southern Scotland before the 5c. Anglo-Saxon invasion drove them into Wales, Cornwall, and a few other corners. In 4c. B.C.E. Greek they are recorded as Prittanoi, which is said to mean "tattooed people."
In Middle English it was exclusively in historical use, or in reference to the inhabitants of Brittany (see Breton); it was revived when James I was proclaimed King of Great Britain in 1604, and made official at the union of England and Scotland in 1707.
@seachaint And apparently the Irish proscription against "British Isles" is in fact official:
On the internet, everyone knows you're a cat — and that's totally okay.