Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.classics,soc.history.moderated
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!noc.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!mccombtm
From: velde@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Francois Velde)
Subject: Re: Why AD Latin, BC English? - summary & follow-up
Message-ID: <mccombtmCxMJ0J.9s2@netcom.com>
X-Submissions-To: soc-history-mod@bcm.tmc.edu
Sender: mccombtm@netcom.com (Todd Michel McComb)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 16:41:30 GMT
Approved: mccombtm@netcom.com
X-Requests-To: history-mod@netcom.com
Lines: 28
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:31993 sci.classics:4791

wjudd@nermal.santarosa.edu (William Judd) writes:
>MR M CLASQUIN (clasqm@alpha.unisa.ac.za) wrote:
>: that it seems a little strange to use a term that specifically references 
>: time according to the history of one religion when you're trying to study 
>: them all impartially.
>
>But how does the use of the terms BCE and CE constitute any change from BC
>and AD? If the numbering continues to reference "Christ" then the numbering
>references time according to the history of one religion. Changing the terms
>accomplishes nothing if we don't change the numbers (except perhaps a PC
>nod).
>
>Why not renumber history using some geological and therefore culturally
>neutral event (Krakatoa? Etna?)? Then no particular culture can claim
>ascendancy due to having "named" the years.

Etna or Krakatoa won't help you: choose Etna, and you'll be accused of 
Euro-centrism again!

No, you'd need a Nova explosion, or Halley's comet (renamed, of course,
to remove that DWEM's name); making sure the event was observable by
the whole planet.

--
	Francois Velde
	Johns Hopkins University 
	velde@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

