Nails on a Chalkboard
May. 1st, 2007 02:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I've been listing to Introduction to Judaism from The Teaching Company, and every time the Professor gives a date, the sound of the CE grates on my ears like nails on a chalkboard. Now, I understand that the whole point of CE is to make the calendar less "Christocentric", but not only do I feel it fails in that regard, I feel it perpetuates the supremacy of the Christian Calendar whilst smacking of Revisionist History.
It wasn't anno Domini, it was of the Common Era. Bullshit. Why do we use a Calendar where the months have an idiotically variable number of days? Why do we use a Calendar where half of the months are named after Pagan gods and the other half are named after numbers (that don't correspond to their ordinals)? Why do we use a Calendar that is neither absolute nor relative and crossing where Year 0 should be is a pain? Why do we use a Calendar with a Leap System accurate for only 4000 years? Why do we use a Calendar that has been moved several times over the course of the centuries? Why do we use a Calendar with 7-day weeks? Why do we use a Calendar whose origin is the (presumed) date of birth (or by some accounts conception) of the Christian God? Because it was divinely given to us by the Pope.
Replacing anno Domini with Common Era does nothing to change the Christian origin of the Calendar and serves only to perpetuate its (divine) "rightness". In its historical light, the use of "Common Era" can be seen as merely a shortening of "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord" or "the common era of the birth of our Saviour". Ever since I got my very first checking account, I've been writing AD on my checks. Most people who notice it are bemused that I would put in the effort, but a few people, mostly Chinese and Jews, understand the point: The Christian Calendar is not the One True Calendar. Yes, it's the one used (nearly) everywhere right now, but not only could that change, but there are very good reasons to do so.
I've also, as an intellectual exercise, been keeping track of the date using the Calendar of the Illuminati that I devised back in 5999, after rereading The Illuminatus! Trilogy. If anyone's wondering, today is the second day of the month of A, 6007. For eight years, I've been telling time in my head using another Calendar, and it's been interesting. When we hit the next Leap Year (6011, for those of you who are counting), I'm planning on making some of the adjustments I've been thinking of, including adjusting the Leap System to remove some of its swing.
We haven't reached consensus on which Calendar to move to (I'm currently favoring the Tranquility Calendar with my Leap System), so I'm content at continuing to use the Christian Calendar. But I find it intellectually dishonest and disgustingly PC to call it anything but.
It wasn't anno Domini, it was of the Common Era. Bullshit. Why do we use a Calendar where the months have an idiotically variable number of days? Why do we use a Calendar where half of the months are named after Pagan gods and the other half are named after numbers (that don't correspond to their ordinals)? Why do we use a Calendar that is neither absolute nor relative and crossing where Year 0 should be is a pain? Why do we use a Calendar with a Leap System accurate for only 4000 years? Why do we use a Calendar that has been moved several times over the course of the centuries? Why do we use a Calendar with 7-day weeks? Why do we use a Calendar whose origin is the (presumed) date of birth (or by some accounts conception) of the Christian God? Because it was divinely given to us by the Pope.
Replacing anno Domini with Common Era does nothing to change the Christian origin of the Calendar and serves only to perpetuate its (divine) "rightness". In its historical light, the use of "Common Era" can be seen as merely a shortening of "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord" or "the common era of the birth of our Saviour". Ever since I got my very first checking account, I've been writing AD on my checks. Most people who notice it are bemused that I would put in the effort, but a few people, mostly Chinese and Jews, understand the point: The Christian Calendar is not the One True Calendar. Yes, it's the one used (nearly) everywhere right now, but not only could that change, but there are very good reasons to do so.
I've also, as an intellectual exercise, been keeping track of the date using the Calendar of the Illuminati that I devised back in 5999, after rereading The Illuminatus! Trilogy. If anyone's wondering, today is the second day of the month of A, 6007. For eight years, I've been telling time in my head using another Calendar, and it's been interesting. When we hit the next Leap Year (6011, for those of you who are counting), I'm planning on making some of the adjustments I've been thinking of, including adjusting the Leap System to remove some of its swing.
We haven't reached consensus on which Calendar to move to (I'm currently favoring the Tranquility Calendar with my Leap System), so I'm content at continuing to use the Christian Calendar. But I find it intellectually dishonest and disgustingly PC to call it anything but.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 03:49 pm (UTC)on the other hand, i grew up with "our era" and "before our era" so ce and bce make perfect sense to me. when i came to america i thought it was very very confused for a while.
re: some of us use a calendra that has over 5000 years in it and has ntohign to do with ce or bce.
Date: 2007-05-01 03:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:26 pm (UTC)When we move off planet I expect all of these stupid things to be refreshed to a new and immensely more logical system, but until then all that matters to me is that I can know the date-time relative to other date-times, so '07 (with no identifier) is perfectly suitable for my needs.
As to your actual point, CE does just sound like a pointless renaming to show your objection (but accomplish nothing more). It's like putting a "Support our troops" magnet on your car and thinking you're actually doing something.
re: I don't care
Date: 2007-05-01 04:34 pm (UTC)When we move off planet I expect all of these stupid things to be refreshed to a new and immensely more logical system
The Tranquility Calendar operates under the conclusion that we already have moved offplanet, and uses the date of our first moonwalk as its origin.
Re: I don't care
Date: 2007-05-01 05:59 pm (UTC)Re: I don't care
Date: 2007-05-01 06:53 pm (UTC)OooOOOOoooooh!
Re: I don't care
Date: 2007-05-01 09:18 pm (UTC)Re: I don't care
From:Re: I don't care
From:Re: I don't care
From:(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:32 pm (UTC)As for the odd little behaviors of the calendar, that's just what happens when you're still learning how to measure time over extremely long periods while you need a workable calendar. Its true we could switch to a metric calendar and make the math a lot easier in the short-term, but over the long term it would be just as flawed; our revolutions will never match our rotations to an integer value for very long at all, and Luna's revolution will also never line up exactly. Unless you want to choose one unit of celestial time to supercede all others (such as a year, a day, a month, etc), you're going to have quirky behavior in trying to have a calendar that doesn't involve an absurd number of decimal places.
re: It is truly the Common Era.
Date: 2007-05-01 04:37 pm (UTC)As for the odd little behaviors of the calendar...
I find Leap Systems to be an allowable quirk. I'd rather not see a 28-day month smooshed between two 31-day months.
Re: It is truly the Common Era.
Date: 2007-05-01 04:55 pm (UTC)Re: It is truly the Common Era.
Date: 2007-05-01 04:58 pm (UTC)Re: It is truly the Common Era.
Date: 2007-05-01 05:13 pm (UTC)Well, the Gregorian Calendar, which places Year 1 at the place we're familiar with it today, was spawned by Pope Gregory the Umpteenth in 1582. The Gregorian calendar was structurally very similar to the calendar that was dominant in Europe at the time, namely the Julian calendar. The Julian calendar was in use all over Europe because it was the calendar that was used by the Roman Empire from about 45 BC onwards. Gregory modified the Julian calendar to move Year 1 forward 750-some-odd years. This split is where the AD/BC split first appears.
During the 16th century, and for some time after that, the Catholic Church was a major player in the geopolitics of Europe. As their clergy had far-reaching influence in many of the nations of Europe, as well as a position in society as recognized scholars and, more significantly for these purposes, timekeepers, as many of the major clocks of the 12th-17th centuries were housed in churches or other major religious structures. Thus is was natural for secular society (such as it was) to adopt the church's time system, including its calendar.
From the 17th Century to the 19th Century, Europe began and ran through its major colonial period, colonizing, conquering, and making contact with all corners of the globe. Everywhere they went, they brought their time and their calendar with them. In order to do business with Europe, you dealt with the Gregorian Calendar for all records and scheduling. In addition, all of Europe colony's would end up using Europe's calendar, including the United States. We'll get back to that in a moment.
During the 19th Century we see the first emergence of a truly global superpower, namely the British Empire. Operating from their island off the European Mainland, Britain would dominate the world stage from the Napoleonic era up to the First World War, and even then the United Kingdom's power would be slow to fade. Again, the British were using the Gregorian calendar, and all the many nations of the world that interacted with Britain began using British systems not only for working with the Empire, but also with each other. Interesting, we still see the effects of this today in the widespread use of English between non-native speaking nations.
Britain begins its decline in power in the post-World War I years only to be surpassed by its former colony, the United States, which would continue to dominate the global economy until and through the end of the 20th century. The United States also used (and uses today) the Gregorian Calendar, giving that calendar an even more lengthy tenure as the calendar of commerce around the world.
The result? A calendar that was born out of religious decree, but has expanded far beyond its less-than-humble beginnings to become the world's most used calendar. From Rome to the Vatican to Europe to the rest of the World, there's a distinct train of events that lead to the particular Year 1 that is recognized and has been for centuries.
And that's my James Burke impression for the evening.
Re: It is truly the Common Era.
Date: 2007-05-01 05:16 pm (UTC)Re: It is truly the Common Era.
Date: 2007-05-01 05:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:40 pm (UTC)You aren't familiar with a Tranquility calendar... it isn't a lunar calendar.
http://www.mithrandir.com/Tranquility/tranquility.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 04:58 pm (UTC)And I'm amused that the science-worship calendar still appropriates the names for weekdays based on Norse pantheons. And that it's based around the moon landing, yet isn't lunar. How remarkably.. scientific.
Besides, the nice thing about a 12 month calendar is that it nicely quarters into chunks that roughly represent the timing of the seasons. It may not be practical from a business or science perspective, but I like having certain aspects of my life tied to something so physical, so inalterably real.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 05:47 pm (UTC)As for 12 versus 13 months, 12 30 day months with 5 not-days-in-months is almost as smooth.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Reply on or around May 6th
From:Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Well, ick but...
From:Re: Well, ick but...
From:Re: Well, ick but...
From:Re: Well, ick but...
From:Re: with Greg
From:Re: with Greg
From:Re: with Greg
From:Re: Well, ick but...
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Since you brought it up
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:for your information, some self-descriptions
From:Re: for your information, some self-descriptions
From:Re: for your information, some self-descriptions
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Re: Reply on or around May 6th
From:Or I'll take a page from your book
From:Re: Or I'll take a page from your book
From:Re: Or I'll take a page from your book
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 06:24 pm (UTC)While I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to desire, it is not an accurate complaint. But more on that in a moment.
CE suggests not that there is no Christian influence, it suggests that Christ is not "Our" Lord. Years after Christ was approximately born I can handle. Year of Your Lord (which would be my choice, or maybe Their Lord) is a tad awkward, I fear.
BUT... Common Era is not new, nor is it purely a non-Christian usage. It is hundreds of years old, and was, itself, preceded by Era Vulgaris, which means roughly the same thing.
Many of your "why do we use...' questions, as noted elsewhere, have nothing to do with Christianity, per se, and merely with what they passed down that predated them.
As for the lack of a year 0, I am pleased to report that the field of Astronomy has a year 0. Not only that, but they have the delightful habit of referring to things as (for example) -52AD. There is no CE/BCE, but neither is there a BC.
There have been other attempts to change our calendar to more logical systems and starting points, some of which were proposed centuries ago. The rationale tend to be fascinating.
re: nothing to do with Christianity, per se
Date: 2007-05-01 09:31 pm (UTC)Re: Well, ick but...
Date: 2007-05-02 04:03 pm (UTC)Though the fact that it's first-person-plural is a little irritating, as per
Quick, someone give me the Latin for "In the Year of Their Lord?"