[ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings

[Lee Corbin]

Damien reminds us of the extensive history of discomfort in 
some quarters with "B.C." and "A.D.".  Quite true, and
quite understandable.

In fact, put yourself in the position of a non-Christian hundreds
of years ago when in many communities "A.D." and "B.C."
would have been neologisms. Suppose you were a Moor living
in a Jewish community in Spain, and heard your neighbors
view "A.D." and "B.C." with the gravest suspicion: "What's this?
Oy, looks to me like some G-d d-mn-d thing the goim came up with.
We should stay away from it."

That would be entirely sensible, and so would have been the 
use of any number of alternatives---at points in history
*before* any particular system achieved preeminence. 

Consider that the most important thing about the high definition
optical disc format war, Blu-ray Disc vs. HD DVD, is that it
is finally and thankfully *over*.  We can go forward now that
Blu-ray has won. True, this was a commercial war, but there
is a strong analogy. And my point is, let's always try for a 
single standard, and it doesn't really matter what it is.

At some point in the past, the AD/BC system became dominant,
and that should have been the end of it.  And I myself will switch
to BCE and CE should the majority ever tilt that way.  But 
until that day, just *why* are these efforts being made? It's
still a question---now---unfortunately---of ideological struggle.

The two most recent and highly acclaimed books of my book
discussion group are "Farewell to Alms" and "The Birth of 
Plenty", both discussed on this forum. They both use the AD/BC
system.

Four other books grabbed---from many---that I just quickly from
my bookshelf:
     "The Mapmakers", Wilford, uses AD/BC
     "1453 the Holy War for Constantinople" by Crowley, uses AD/BC
     "The Hellenistic Age", Peter Green, uses "BCE/CE"
     "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by Mann, uses AD/BC

Of course, I can't tell just from that what the stats in books really are,
but it seems likely that AD/BC still holds the upper hand, despite the
inroads (according to Wikipedia) that the BCE/CE system is making.

Still the question remains:  WHY CHANGE?

The traditional system---which had become over the last centuries
quite free from ideological associations---is perfectly okay, even
for this stalwart atheist and most of his equally skeptical friends.

Or must ideological struggle be injected into *everything*?

Lee


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] 1984 and Orwell's Warnings


> At 05:59 PM 5/20/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
> 
>>For so many, It is not enough  to deny God and to
>>repudiate religion and to completely reject such
>>mysticism and prescientific thinking.  Oh no, they
>>*must* go for much more: the Politically Correct
>>instinct demands that every trace of "incorrect thought"
>>be obliterated
> 
> My sense of this is that many Jewish scholars (who are, as we know, 
> hugely more influential than their numbers might suggest, and who are 
> not notorious for denying God) recommended BCE [before common era] 
> because AD and BC are so palpably partisan, even if only as a 
> fossilized metaphor. Fair enough, I say.
> 
> Oh, wait. Wikipedia says otherwise:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
> 
> <Originating among Christians in Europe at least as early as 1615 (at 
> first in 
> Latin),<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#cite_note-VulgarisAerae1-7>[8] 
> Common Era notation has been adopted in several non-Christian 
> cultures, by many scholars in religious studies and other academic 
> fields,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#cite_note-8>[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#cite_note-9>[10] 
> and by others wishing to be sensitive to 
> non-Christians.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#cite_note-cst-10>[11] >
> 
> Damien Broderick