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.
OK, so I think we have determined that the designations AD and BC have been in use a very long time. There is no reason to change them. Everybody in the West knows the system, and it works very well just as it is.
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.
Terminology is always a matter of use. I say Charlemagne, but I say it in English, not French because that would be pretentious. And I might even tell someone what his name means in English. As for Dionysius Exiguus, it would be pronounced with English sounds. A person would not try to pronounce it in some Latin/Romanian dialect of the 6th century AD, unless to be pedantic.
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.
Traditional only in the West? Of course those dates are traditional only in the West. But this is the West. That is why we use. Now if you move to China, you would use the Chinese system of dates. And you might want to learn Chinese so you could give your lecture in the local language. And if you were lecturing in Argentina, you would probably lecture in Spanish if you wanted your students to understand you. But there you wouldn't have to change your system of dates.
It isn't a question of which is the best system. It is a matter of using the system your nation uses.