BBC goes PC with BCE

[rug]

By Chris Hastings
Last updated at 10:50 PM on 24th September 2011

The BBC has been accused of 'absurd political correctness' after dropping the terms BC and AD in case they offend non-Christians.

The Corporation has replaced the familiar Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ with the obscure terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

Some of the BBC's most popular programmes including University Challenge, presented by Jeremy Paxman, and Radio 4's In Our Time, hosted by Melvyn Bragg, are among the growing number of shows using the new descriptions

The BBC's religious and ethics department says the changes are necessary to avoid offending non-Christians.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041265/BBC-turns-year-Our-Lord-2-000-years-Christianity-jettisoned-politically-correct-Common-Era.html?ITO=1490

[Tesha]

1. For much of the world, "BC" and "AD" are meaningless. (NT)

[dmallind]

2. BBC finally dumps exclusionary superstition decades after the rest of the world. nt

[darkstar3]

3. +1

[laconicsax]

4. BBC accepts Christian narrative in the name of political correctness. n/t

[dmallind]

8. Sure but what's the meaningful alternative?

The whole world knows it's 2011, even those groups who use their own dates for ceremonial purposes. Changing the number would be very difficult and very expensive and probably fail. Removing the overt parochial name for the numbers is a big deal easily achieved.

Besides, as all rhe completely informed and sophisticated DU believers doubtless know, it's nigh impossible to accept the birth of Jesus as being in the pivotal year. Depending on whether you care about governorships or census timing, it is pegged in either a fictional or factional sense several years off.

[laconicsax]

10. The narrative is that of the "common era."

We use a Christian calendar, so why not just be honest with ourselves about it? Having the birth of Jesus usher in a new "common" eroaks far more offensive than just saying Anno Domini and knowing it's a Christian calendar.

There's nothing common about the common era.

[dmallind]

12. But we cannot reason this a priori

Yes if we were asked to develop a new year numbering system it would be exclusionary to base it on the guess of a specific putative prophet's birth. But we don't have that luxury. Textbooks, computer programs, public records etc throughout the world - including the non-Christian world, use CE/BCE numbers. They may do so through imperial or neocolonial effects, or through sheer cultural absorption, but they do. Changing that to a neutral system is as realistic as having Esperanto replace English as the international language of air traffic controllers. It just won't happen.

We all know the days of the week are named after pagan gods, but we don't consider it offensive. Same with months of the year. Why not the years themselves?

[laconicsax]

13. It's the implicit validation of a religion's mythos

Naming the days of the week after the various Norse gods doesn't say anything about the mythos to which they belong.

Saying, "in the year of our lord" when using a Christian calendar validates the importance of Jesus to the Christian religion.

Using the birth of a religion's central character to denote the start of a "common era" that transcends the source religion validates the claim of that character's universal importance.

[pokerfan]

5. Those bastards!

What should be done with them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

[LeftishBrit]

6. This is the Daily Mail. A cross between the National Enquirer and Rush Limbaugh's talk-show

It's a sensationalist rag, known for vicious campaigns against immigrants, Gypsies, benefit claimants, single mothers, Muslims, non-Tory politicians, liberal Tory politicians, and anything post-1950s except Maggie Thatcher. This recent Daily Mail article heading may give the picture: 'Gay marriage will lead us into anarchy, says Super Bowl hero.'

It considers just about everything to be 'absurd political correctness'. And also hates the BBC in general, as does our current government.

The BBC is broadcast in many countries, and presumably wishes to conform with international practices here; but the Daily Hate-Mail seems to want to imply that they are appeasing the evil Muslim immigrants, and evil atheists, in the UK.

In any case, at a time when the economy is down the tube, unemployment increasing rapidly, Britain is involved in at least one unwinnable war, and the government are at best fucking up the NHS and at worst preparing to sell it off to the highest bidders - I don't think that whether we call the date CE or AD is the top priority.

And whether we call a date BC or BCE, we can be pretty sure that the Daily Fail want to drag us back to it!

[onager]

7. Absurd political correctness since the 17th century!

The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English,<5> and traced back to Latin usage among European Christians to 1615, as vulgaris aerae,<6> and to 1635 in English as Vulgar Era. At those times, the expressions were all used interchangeably with "Christian Era", and "vulgar" meant "not regal" rather than "crudely indecent".

Use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century. Dates before the year 1 CE are indicated by the usage of BCE, short for "Before the Common Era". Since the later 20th century, usage of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by publishers emphasizing secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

[ChadwickHenryWard]

9. Actually, they are very late in adopting those terms.

Far from being obscure, "CE" and "BCE" are in wide use. It's "AD" and "BC" that have become archaic. I'm actually quite surprised that this change has only recently been made. I don't think it's out of any "political correctness" that they made the adoption. In parts of the world not dominated by Christian thought, the old terms are pretty meaningless.

Of course, the real problem with our calendar is that it lacks a year zero. The lack of a digit between one and negative one is problematic.

[Iggo]

11. Good.