To: icwhatudo
I teach history at a private school in Australia. ‘Official’ guidance for us now is that we should use AD and BC in discussing western history, but that BCE and CE is still appropriate when discussing other places - particularly Asia.
5 posted on
02/05/2009 6:43:56 PM PST by
naturalman1975
("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
To: naturalman1975
Not to hijack the thread, but I love how AD and BC have made a comeback. (Over the CE and BCE that were being forced upon us like the metric system) On a recent trip to the Smithsonian, I noticed some new exhibits are also back to AD and BC when giving dates.And that is appropriate for what reason?
8 posted on
02/05/2009 6:49:21 PM PST by
stripes1776
("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
To: naturalman1975
but that BCE and CE is still appropriate when discussing other places - particularly Asia.This is the quote I meant to respond to. Why is that appropriate?
9 posted on
02/05/2009 6:51:57 PM PST by
stripes1776
("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
To: naturalman1975
It’s still silly to use that nomenclature if the demarcation between BCE and CE exactly mirrors BC and AD and is, after all, divided by the pivotal birth of Christ.
10 posted on
02/05/2009 6:52:38 PM PST by
WorkingClassFilth
(Actually, it all started back in Mayberry. Helen Crump was a traveler and Floyd, well, you know...)
To: naturalman1975
BCE & CE is also used in every one of my college history books when referring to Western history or Asian. (I'm finally finishing my History degree)
33 posted on
08/07/2011 7:06:41 PM PDT by
submarinerswife
(Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results~Einstein)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson