Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 9/6/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
No I was just applying the logic that using the AD/BC system implies that Jesus is god means that using the names of the months imply that the Roman Gods were gods as well.
SKL
Ahh, I see your logic. I apologise for the misunderstanding.
However, I think your logic is flawed. Months have names, given names, that are pretty much universally accepted (I realise that they arn't completly universally accepted, but pretty much), the same as (for instance) weekdays are. I'm writing this here on a beautiful wednesday morning, but by recognizing that fact I'm not affirming the greatness of Odin (see [[Wednesday]]). My own name, Oskar, happens to mean "Spear of the Gods", but unlike most spears, I'm remarkably un-skinny (I am fairly pointy though). These are names, and even do they do mean something, they mean nothing. If you know what I mean.
However, this is not necessarily the case with AD/CE. I understand how someone might look at it that way, but there are some very crucial difference. First, and foremost, is that there are obviously people who do find it offensive. Many people. That's why the whole CE thing was invented (and btw, when I was studying history in English here in northern Europe, CE was all we ever used, so it's not like it's unheard of in academia), because many people find AD to be offensive.
I think a much better PC-analogy for the AD/CE thing than names of months is the introduction of the title (is it a title?) Ms. While it wasn't invented by modern feminists, it was certainly popularized because there is something blatantly sexist in English (and many other languages) titles. So we decided that this was wrong, and thus Ms. was introduced. And now everyone is comfortable with it, it's not in the least controversial at all. I think it's the same with years. There is something deeply eurocentric with using AD, since you are infact affirming the existance of God, so we have a nice little non-offensive alternative. Why not use it? Because people may have difficulty understanding it? Unless you are very thick indeed, it won't take long to understand. And it's not like we avoid using technical language and jargon for other subjects (pick a random non-trivial article on maths or chemistry, you'll see what I mean), so why not for history?
I realise that I may not be convincing anyone, but I this is how I feel. AD is obviously controversial, so why not use CE? It's so neat!
--Oskar
Well I still think it should be a preference setting. Especially since, as someone else pointed out, CE is not without controversy. I mean what makes it common? What makes it an era? If you want to remove Christianity from the equation then you are opening it up. I think the "common" era started with the industrial revolution. I also think we may be reaching the end of it and going into a new era. I suspect the black death is an event that changed the world enough to base a date system on it. So what makes that time period about 2000 years ago so special that everything after it is one era and it is common? What unifies those dates? No fair using religious movements which may have started at the time either.
But, this is all just for fun at this point. Unless the technical solution is not forth coming, and I also like the idea that the default (as with variations of English spelling) goes to the first significant editor.
SKL