Yes, that is why the terms BC and AD have been used for a very long time. As a historian, perhaps you would know something about the history of calendars and numbering years. When were the terms first used?
This is not as true for other areas around the world - but when we look at their histories, we often still find a useful ‘dividing date’ somewhere approximately around AD1 - for example, with China, the Han Dynasty encompasses around -200 to +200 (yet another dating system!), with Japan, the Yayoi period frames -300 to +250, in India, the Middle Kingdoms arise about that time... there’s a decent case to argue that the world in general changed at that time, and so as a convenient dividing date, the Gregorian calendar is still useful - but using BC/AD would put risk ignoring the reasons the changes occurred.
It seems to me that case is extremely flimsy. When you discuss Chinese history, do you also start lecturing in Chinese? Or when discussing Japanese history, do you speak in Japanese? If you continue to lecture in English, does that not give the wrong impression that the Chinese and Japanese speak English as their native tongue?
Personally I do use BC/AD in my classes and differentiate where necessary by using references like, “During the Qin period,” but I’m also aware of the discussion that goes on around these issues, and it makes me wonder if the mover back to BC/AD in some US contexts might come from this ‘compromise’ rather than a return to the older principles.
I still don't see a sound principle for the change to BCE and CE in the first place. I think what we see is common sense reasserting itself after some academics in a snit of multicultural fundamentalism decided that would change the traditional designations.
In a small antiquities shop in a side alley in Naples, I recently purchased a Gold Roman Solidus dated 125 BC. The emperor stamped on the head side looked a lot like Obama.
The 'Anno Domini' and the associated dating system was developed by a Romanian monk Dionysius Exiguus about AD525. It's first prominent use was by the Venerable Bede in compiling his 'Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum' completed around AD730, and from then the practice seems to have been the accepted one in England. Charlemagne endorsed it early in the ninth century and from there, it gradually spread across Western Europe over the next 600 years. So at this point, it's been in widespread use across all of the western world for about 600 years. The term 'Before Christ' or BC doesn't come into use until about 600 years ago (pre-AD dates were generally given as Emperor's regnal years or similar, where they were needed).
It seems to me that case is extremely flimsy. When you discuss Chinese history, do you also start lecturing in Chinese? Or when discussing Japanese history, do you speak in Japanese? If you continue to lecture in English, does that not give the wrong impression that the Chinese and Japanese speak English as their native tongue?
No, but I will normally use the correct Chinese and Japanese terminology for important events and people in their history (or at least as close as I can get to), just as I referred to Dionysius Exiguus above, rather than calling him Dennis the Small.
I still don't see a sound principle for the change to BCE and CE in the first place. I think what we see is common sense reasserting itself after some academics in a snit of multicultural fundamentalism decided that would change the traditional designations.
The thing is, they are only traditional in the west. I use them because I am teaching western students, and I think that's fine in that context. I also think it's fine in a museum in the western world. But I do understand why some people think it's not the best system.