On 9/6/06, ScottL <scott(a)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