Posted on 11/18/2004 10:39:06 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Our civilization is suffering what could be called a cultural death by a thousand cuts. The open sores are ubiquitous, but what happens to irk me at this moment is that quite some time ago I learned that my birth date is not what my parents always told me it was. Moreover, no one else’s is either. You see, those who are contemptuous of tradition have decided to take it upon themselves to change our calendar and replace B.C. [Before Christ] and A.D. [Anno Domini] with B.C.E. [Before the Common Era] and C.E. [The Common Era].
The latter two designations probably aren’t new to you, since they have found favor with pseudo-intellectual academics and seem to be in every new documentary and in many new books. And if you’re taking the time to read this, the reasoning behind their adoption probably isn’t new to you either. The idea is that B.C. and A.D. are reflective of Christianity, and since not everyone is Christian, it’s insensitive and religio-centric to use them. Well, mercy me! We’ll just have to relegate our culture to the dustbin of history lest we offend someone with our existence. After all, it’s obviously better to perish as a civilization than to meet our maker with the burden of having offended someone weighing on our souls.
All joking aside, their reasoning is the epitome of specious logic. B.C. and A.D. certainly are reflective of Christianity, but everything is reflective of something. For instance, since we’re talking about our calendar, it’s instructive to note that every single month’s name is of Roman origin. A few examples: July and August were named after Julius and Augustus Caesar. January and March were named after Janus and Mars, the Roman pagan gods of war, and of gates and doors and entrances and exits, respectively. September, November and December are named after the Latin [which was the language the Romans spoke] words for seven, nine and ten, respectively. Should we rename our months? After all, relatively few people are of Roman descent.
Then there’s the fact that we use the Roman alphabet [although they learned it from the Etruscans] and Arabic numerals [invented by the Hindus, most likely]. Yet, I never hear anyone say that we should dispense with those designations because they might offend those not of Roman, Etruscan, Arabic or Hindu lineage. Or, how about the fact that English, which is spoken in all corners of the Earth now, bears the name of a people on a small island in the Atlantic?
And what about our cities and states? Many of them bear names that are reflective of Christian influence: Los Angeles [the Angels], Sacramento [the Sacraments] and Corpus Christi [the Body of Christ], to name a few. But, then, some are reflective of French influence, such as Baton Rouge and Louisiana; some are reflective of American Indian influence, such as Chappaqua, Saratoga, Illinois, Texas and twenty-five other states; some are reflective of Spanish influence, such as Palo Alto, Los Alamos and over two-thousand other places. And, of course, there’s the fact that our country was named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci. There go those Italians again, hogging all the influence.
Methinks much offense can be taken, so some remedial action is in order. Here are my suggestions: our months should be renamed and referred to as “Common Month One,” “Common Month Two,” etc. Then, our alphabet can be called “the Common Alphabet,” our numbers “the Common Numerals” and English “the Common Language.” Then we must resolve to rename our states “Common State One,” “Common State two,” all the way up to fifty, assigning them the Common Numbers based on the order in which they entered our Common Union. The end of this good start – but only the beginning of a journey toward total sensitivity – will be to take the lead among nations and rename America “Common Nation 192.” Why Common Number 192? Well, that’s how many nations exist at present, and we wouldn’t want to be so insensitive as to take Common Number One for ourselves simply because we were so privileged as to be sensitive first. Now, I don’t expect other nations to follow suit immediately, but I reckon that when our common-sense extends across the Common Oceans and to the common folk, Common Continents one through six will become sensitized to sensitivity.
But my sense of whimsy has gotten the better of me. So, let’s transition from the ridiculous to the sublime . . . about the ridiculous. In reality, none of the above would work because the salient point is, once again, that EVERYTHING is reflective of something. If you’re going to name something the Common Era, you must ask, common to whom? After all, our calendar [the Gregorian] is not the only one in existence. Jews, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and others have their own calendars, and I’m confident that we could find some devout Jews and Muslims who would maintain that our Gregorian calendar isn’t common to them.
Of course, the question that most begs to be asked here is, what event are we dating the Common Era from? Answer: the approximate birth date of Jesus of Nazareth! To try to obscure that fact and erase our past by manipulating terminology is dishonest, and is another example of the most invidious sort of revisionist history. Moreover, the reasoning behind this element of social-engineering is so flawed and involves such an obvious double-standard that it could only be accepted by second-rate minds. It so drips of contempt for tradition and Christianity that it could only be truly palatable to a bigot. That’s why it may seem ironic that it was originated by a few theologians, but it isn’t really. For, there are some ideas that are so irreligious that only a theologian could think of them.
Before I conclude, I must add that you don’t have to be religious to consider this change to be an affront; you simply have to be an American who cares about his culture and traditions. And we should be mindful of the fact that other nations do not share the disordered compulsion to relinquish their culture for fear of offending others. Now, the question is, since taking this leaf out of their book is a prerequisite for our national survival, do we have the capacity to cultivate the same strength in ourselves?
Well, a good first step toward that goal is understanding the following: everything offends someone and most everyone is offended by something. Why, I’m offended by the fact that cultural terrorists are denuding our cultural landscape of the things closest to the American heart. The fact is that what’s offensive is very subjective. This explains why our preoccupation with avoiding giving offense has degenerated into a never-ending battle that inures us to untruth, injustice and the un-American way.
Could you imagine the Islamic world shedding its traditions under the pretext of tolerance and sensitivity? Are we, for some inexplicable reason, to be the only nation that has no right to its culture? A.D. and B.C. have been in use for fifteen-hundred years. For some left-wing academics to come along and presume that they have a right to remake this and whatever else doesn’t suit their transitory fancies is outrageous. It’s almost as outrageous as the fact that most of us stand idly by and do nothing to resist their machinations. It is not only our right but our duty to protect the great and good that dozens of generations of our ancestors have bequeathed to us. And we would do well to remember that civilizations rise and fall; they are born, mature, age and die. If we want to preserve ours, we had better stand and be counted and tend to her cultural health. If we will not, perhaps it really is our time to walk quietly into the night. And if so, our epitaph just may read: Oh, principled were we, we wouldn’t bend, we were sensitive till the end.
What we've got is close enough for government work...
Let them. It is not wise to attack a city that possesses excellent writers.
Now, there's a useful scale. Changes every day. Where do these doofus losers come from anyway?
Maybe to help our Blue staters we could reset the clock just for them and call it BGB (before George Bush)
The birth of Christ is, frankly, as good as any whether you're Christian or not. It has the advantage of long usage. The Muslims use the Hejira, which is just as arbitrary (and contains similar but smaller elements of uncertainty). But "B.C.E." and "C.E." are simply silly. Using a reference point while pretending to ignore the referent is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Everything that is significant in the world began on 9 September 1998. Someday soon historians will be using BBtD and ABtD. Or else.
(1) The Gregorian reform of the calendar took place in the year 1581 of the Julian calendar and the year 1582 of the current Gregorian system.
Not in the 900s. You're off by about 600 years.
(2) One of the reasons why the calendar was adjusted was precisely because of the concern that the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar was falsifying the dating system with regard to Christ's birth.
(3) The date of 4 BC for the actual birth of Christ is a guess by some scholars. It isn't an established fact and a case can be made for the year 1. It would be silly to alter our calendar every time scholars changed their mind about the real dating of the Nativity.
Though I could really care less what terminology anyone else uses, I use bce and ce. Let me explain to you why. The term before "Christ" automatically acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah and son of G-d. Since I a Jew do not believe he was (is) it makes no sense for me to use the term BC. In respect of the Christian calender which bases its 2 era's on the life and death of Jesus I believe that by using the same timeline but not acknowledging Jesus as more than a Rabbi ie. BC, I am showing respect to your religion while not using terminology which defies mine. Let me know what you all think.
-Priceofreedom-
Sorry, I meant "8 September." But if I can get my own signup date wrong...
Ditto. BCE and CE are obnoxious and wouldn't be done if they were taken from any non-Christian dating system. I'm taking a Chinese archaeology class and the American instructor uses CE/BCE. Interestingly, the Chinese don't use them. They use AD and BC when using Gregorian dates.
I noticed this when I returned to college in the early 90s, for an advanced degree. I had to take more history, and kept seeing "BCE" and "CE," and couldn't figure out what it meant. When I finally figured out what it meant, I was incensed. But what could I do? If there's a way to stop this PC madness, I' love to know what it is. This essay is right on track, I couldn't agree more.
I always use BC and AD. If the professor insists on using CE and BCE, usually I put a description: Christian Era and Before Christian Era.
I thought the calender had been corrected for that a long time ago. Is that still how it is? I'd heard that also, many years ago, but I thought the last update to our calender system was corrected for this. Does anyone have the real scoop on that?
No BC or AD? Fine, how about we call the current year 228 US. New Years Day will from now on occur on July 4.
Oh, you don't like this? Suck lemons.
It seems to me, if we really want to be totally PC and not offend anybody, there are only two solutions. One, we reference from the date the earth was condensed out of a blob of dust and gas ("BE" for Birth of Earth). I think that was about 4 billion years ago. Now pinpointing this exact date could pose a problem and there may be a bit more uncertainty than there is about the birth of Jesus. At the other extreme, we could use the aforementioned "Before Present" reference point. We all certainly know when the present is, there's no doubt about that. This is very useful to university academics because there are no longer any absolutes in the academy -- everything is relative anyway. Furthermore, academics insist on rewriting history anyway, so what's the point of having a fixed reference date if history is going to change? Just look at the Clinton library that opened today. Instead of "Impeachment," it focuses on "Persecution." That's rapid fire revisionism and strongly supports the use of BP over the use of BE. Since there's not point fighting the tide of liberalist fantasies, I suggest we pick on, be done with it and get on with our lives.
Looked fine to me. Better than a few airplanes crashing into buildings to get your point across....
They can take the "Common Era" and stick it where the sun don't shine.
LOL! I'm going to practice that one!
Yeah, the 'educated' archeologists have been using BCE and CE for awhile.
Trying to figure out what years they are speaking about is insane.
Thanks for the info, wideawake! It's exactly what I was looking for. God, I love Free Republic.
Never really thought of it that way, I guess its a clear example of the shocking difference of the "religion of peace" and the rest of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.