Tweet
Recently I was told again that we shouldn't use AD/BC in our official documents / scientific papers, etc. b/c it's not a neutral POV.
Well, I can understand that way of thinking and I have no problems with neutral POV, I even think that's a good thing. So if the ad/bc thing isn't considered to be 'neutral' then we should not use it.
BUT...
1. Why is using bc/ad not neutral? It's just, like about all year counting systems, based on the birth/life of one (supposed to have lived) person. That doesn't make it more or less neutral.
but that's not my most important problem with this BCE/CE nonsense;
2. Using BCE/CE instead of AD/BC isn't neutral at all. It's in fact a statement, a message. It says: "We still base our year counting system on this Jesus guy but you're not allowed to say that"
I'm totally in favor of using BCE/CE, but then base it really on the CE. The supposed birth year of Jesus did not start our common era. If we really have to pick a start date for the CE, then it might be the end of WW2, perhaps even 9/11, or the Enlightening or the Renaissance. We could pick perhaps even the start of the Roman empire or Alexander the Greats birth date or date he took lead in Greece.
But if we insist on basing our year-count on Jesus, then don't be so foolish to rename it. It's not neutral at all, for starters b/c you still base your year-count on Jesus and therefore imply that Jesus did indeed start our CE. And you also just try to change history by renaming something that's been used for hundreds of years after the current popular opinion.
So either stick to BC/AD, and keep it as it always has been, or pick a real new system that's really based on the current era. So till no good decision has been made I'm going to stick to BC/AD.
Well, I can understand that way of thinking and I have no problems with neutral POV, I even think that's a good thing. So if the ad/bc thing isn't considered to be 'neutral' then we should not use it.
BUT...
1. Why is using bc/ad not neutral? It's just, like about all year counting systems, based on the birth/life of one (supposed to have lived) person. That doesn't make it more or less neutral.
but that's not my most important problem with this BCE/CE nonsense;
2. Using BCE/CE instead of AD/BC isn't neutral at all. It's in fact a statement, a message. It says: "We still base our year counting system on this Jesus guy but you're not allowed to say that"
I'm totally in favor of using BCE/CE, but then base it really on the CE. The supposed birth year of Jesus did not start our common era. If we really have to pick a start date for the CE, then it might be the end of WW2, perhaps even 9/11, or the Enlightening or the Renaissance. We could pick perhaps even the start of the Roman empire or Alexander the Greats birth date or date he took lead in Greece.
But if we insist on basing our year-count on Jesus, then don't be so foolish to rename it. It's not neutral at all, for starters b/c you still base your year-count on Jesus and therefore imply that Jesus did indeed start our CE. And you also just try to change history by renaming something that's been used for hundreds of years after the current popular opinion.
So either stick to BC/AD, and keep it as it always has been, or pick a real new system that's really based on the current era. So till no good decision has been made I'm going to stick to BC/AD.
ACK!
Comment