# Dates and dating



## Blue Mythril (Jun 15, 2005)

Recently (actually it's not really that recent but anyway) there's been a trend in scholarship to date in terms of B.C.E "Before the Common Era" as a P.C. form rather than dating from the Birth of Christ which was the western tradition. Now, I understand where they are coming from in that the birth of Christ is no longer the historical pinpoint relevant to most people. However I still find it to be hypocritical as even though they are changing the name, they are still dating from the same point. Though also there is the argument that the traditional dating was four years off anyway... But the association is still there.

I was wondering, what are people's views on this issue? Are you and B.C/ A.D. person or a B.C.E./ C.E person? Or do you conform to another dating system?


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jun 15, 2005)

BC and AD. Its nice and simple, and I'm a christian anyway...


----------



## Amber (Jun 15, 2005)

BC and Ad.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 15, 2005)

I'm no Christian, but I prefer the BC/AD system, simply because I find the condescension of political correctness even more loathsome than the cultural myopia of the earlier system. Anyway, it's hard to define AD 1 as the start of the Common Era when international trade ties and so on extended far before it.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jun 15, 2005)

As a matter of preference, I like BC/AD because it's what I grew up with. However, I had BCE/CE so pounded into me at university that I tend to use it most of the time now. But as far as it being politically correct - I first learned that BCE/CE meant Before Christian Era and Christian Era and only later was introduced to Before Common Era/Common Era. So, people who think they are cutting the Christians out of the picture by using BCE and CE aren't quite doing what they think they are.

And, just to throw another moneky wrench into the works, a lot of the books I've used for research in archaeology actually use BP (Before Present) rather than either of the above designations. Some authors actually switch freely between one or the other of those and BP, which can really be confusing when they refer to, for example 3000 BC and then 5000 BP - they are actually the same thing. More or less, anyway - by convention, the "present" in BP is 1950 (unless they've updated it recently).


----------



## Blue Mythril (Jun 15, 2005)

Exactly my point, it really isn't a "common era" at all, its just bs. It just brings to mind patronising academics who believe people really care or are offended that the western world dates from a Christian perspective. Really, get over yourselves.


----------



## Stalker (Jun 15, 2005)

For me it's just the matter of titling things whose essence still remains the same. Don't also forget that other nations and religions use different dating system. The most known is Muslim hidgra which counts lunar years (that are shorter than solar years) and the initial point of chronology is 622 AD that is refuge of the Prophet Mohammad to Medina. The Ethiopians also count strangely: according to their chronology, we are now not in june 2005 but in october 1997. Japanese adopted Christian system but also stick to their old chronology counting years of each Emperor (Mikado)'s rule - so, era *Showa*, imperator Hirohito (since 1926), and now there is era *Haisay*, imperator Akihito (since 1989).
Don't forget differences between Julian and Gregorian calendaries and that not all European countries joined that chronology at once. England did that only in the end of 18th century, Soviet Russia only in 1918, and Eastern Orthdox Church still didn't join what they think heretical chronology. So, when all sane Christians celebrate Christmas before the New Year, we celebrate it two weeks later, we cannot even celebrate Easter  together with all Christiandom because our righteous Orthodox Church thinks that only Julian Calendary is proper for this and not the one invented by the Pope-heretic.


----------



## Leto (Jun 15, 2005)

BC and AD. 
Although counting back from the Foundation of the City (753 BC) would be as fine.

Most calendar systems use a religious (generally false if the starting fact can be proved) starting point. The BC and AD one is most widely spread simply for business reasons. No common underlying philosophy under it. In this case,  political correctness is just another of acculturation forcing non-christian to consider this date as a common beginning (even if at this date, most part of the world weren't aware of the events in middle east).


----------



## LadyFel (Jun 15, 2005)

I actually learned the BCE/CE istinction first, as my country was heavily Communist when I started school, and only in the last 15 years have we used the terms BC/AD...(well, they, really, I'd been using them for a bit before as my family moved to England a couple of years before the whole trouble began)...

I agree with Knivesout though, there's such a thing as overdoing the whole 'let's not offend anyone' movement


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 15, 2005)

I don't understand what "Common Era" there was - and I don't see how a dating system essentially based on a strictly Christian calendar can be properly separated from it.

Also, BCE/CE are less distinct than BC/AD. When I see dates in BCE/CE I keep wondering whether there's a typo mixing things up.

Overall, BCE/CE seems a dumb idea, unless it involves a significant revision of the Gregorian calendar to substantiate the change in use of terms.


----------

