| « Asymmetric state of the race: 82 days to go- Obama has bad week | Asymmetric state of the race: 88 days to go » |
The absurdity of B.C.E. and the myth of the common era
08/13/08
**update**
I can understand using "firefighter" instead of "fireman." I sympathize with women preferring "People Working" signs instead of "Men at Work." I may not feel such PC changes are important, or I may think that such subversion of tradition to be detrimental to society in some way, but, still: I get it.
What is incomprehensible except as an example of bull-headed hatred is using "B.C.E." (Before Common Era) instead of "B.C." (Before Christ), for to do so is not only unhistorical, but a literal denial of reality. After all, when did the era of commonality begin? It began with Christ- it wasn't a coincidence! Even the few crackpots who deny the existence of a man called "Jesus" and considered the "Christ" must acknowledge that the Western world begins its calendar from the supposed birth of the so-called Christ.
It was tough finding something as stupid with which to make an analogy, but how about saying, "14 years of my personal common era" instead of, "I've been married for 14 years."
Why not use "U.C.E." (the Uncommon Era) or "E.E." (the Exceptional Era) or "T.Y.F.K.A.B.C." (The Years Formally Known as B.C.) instead? "W.I.Y.C.B.C." (What Ignorant Yahoos Call B.C.)?
Why keep the "B.C." at all? To ease the transition?
Why do people go to such lengths of illogic to use "B.C.E."? Most do it to conform, I imagine. Some to arrogantly call attention to their non-faith or impartiality ("I'm a scientist so I don't use culturally-dependent terms."). Others, to childishly tweak Christians like a kid shooting a water gun at his parents. Many, however, do it as an expression of their hatred and contempt in the same way that people say "heathen" or "infidel" instead of pre-Christian or the name of their faith.
**What about changing "Martin Luther King day" to "Equal Protection day?" Would anybody get upset or perceive it as an insult to MLK? My friend mentioned the metric system as an example of a change. I told him that if the imperial system were named after an English King, say, and the French used the exact same system, but re-named it after a Frenchman, everybody would interpret it as having been done for political reasons or to slight the English.**
"A.D." is a little different in that it's short for Anno Domini or "in the year of our Lord." I can see the people who don't accept Christ as God preferring "A.C."
Solution:
Call it "B.C." People who like to acknowledge reality can carry on as if nothing happened. Christ-deniers/-phobes can pretend it means, "Before Christians."
Tags: b.c.e., bce, bce in history, college before common era, correct usage of bce, is before common era correct, pc in history, should i use bce, should we use common era
2 comments
How about getting rid of B.C. and B.C.E. altogether? Its stinks of religious bias. It might become outdated since the dominion of the christian west in the world might be reaching its twilight. I say a new calender that starts with the estimated year of creation of the first city of Ur (hence civilization) as year one. That would put us somewhere around 10,008 I think. 
You do know that the supposed birth of Christ also marks the beginning of the age of Pisces...or the common era. 
Comment feed for this post
