Plus, just because the Xindi were using something called 'stardates' doesn't mean they're the same as what later comes into use in the Federation.
I don't remember that. What exactly did they say?
Although, perhaps that's where Earth got the idea in the first place?
AD versus Common Era
- Thread starter Ultramann
- Start date
- Status
Although, perhaps that's where Earth got the idea in the first place?
No...I have no problem with it. Consider:The difference is obvious. "Thursday" is closer to "Thor's Day" than "Thunor's Day" anyway and is obviously still in honor of Thor;
Oh, come off it. The overwhelming majority of people in the English-speaking world don't even believe in Thor; their calender system's Thursday ceased to be in his honor when they stopped believing he was real, and most of them don't even know that it was originally "Thor's Day." The name is still there because of inertia, not to honor Thor.
Frankly, that actually proves my point. No one believes in Thor--and yet, due to tradition, the name remains--or at least an homage to it remains.
CE/BCE instead of AD/BC is more of a concious effort and decision than Thursday instead of Thor's Day.
Again, if one wants to use a new system of CE/BCE rather than AD/BC, it is frankly arbitrary and absurd to "pick and choose" to retain the rest of the tradition--namely, focusing the dating around Christ's (incorrect) birthdate.
Why not use a new dating system and calender, if you're going to use new terminology? The Gregorian calender, again, has religious origins, and it is still being used. Why should the dating terminology not also be retained?
Oh, come off it. The overwhelming majority of people in the English-speaking world don't even believe in Thor; their calender system's Thursday ceased to be in his honor when they stopped believing he was real, and most of them don't even know that it was originally "Thor's Day." The name is still there because of inertia, not to honor Thor.
Frankly, that actually proves my point. No one believes in Thor--and yet, due to tradition, the name remains--or at least an homage to it remains.
CE/BCE instead of AD/BC is more of a concious effort and decision than Thursday instead of Thor's Day.
Again, if one wants to use a new system of CE/BCE rather than AD/BC, it is frankly arbitrary and absurd to "pick and choose" to retain the rest of the tradition--namely, focusing the dating around Christ's (incorrect) birthdate.
Why not use a new dating system and calender, if you're going to use new terminology? The Gregorian calender, again, has religious origins, and it is still being used. Why should the dating terminology not also be retained?
You are blatantly contradicting yourself.
What you're saying is that you don't have a problem with using a form of a calender system originally meant to honor God A which has since been modified to remove the religious meaning, but you do mind using calender system originally meant to honor God B which has since been modified to remove the religious meaning. It's the exact same situation: An original calender system meant to honor a god (Thor's Day for Thor; BC/AD for Christ) is modified (Thor's Day to Thursday, BC/AD to BCE/CE) to remove the religious element (no more Thor in the day's naming scheme, no more Christ in the year naming scheme). The only difference is which god the calender systems are honoring.
Your argument would be more intellectually consistent and honest if you would just enumerate the rather obvious unspoken premise of your argument: That you believe society, including its calender systems, should be designed around the veneration of Jesus of Nazareth and the God of Christianity, period.
Within the United States, where the usage remains uncommon. BCE/CE is the de facto standard elsewhere.
On the contrary. That is not my "unspoken premise" by any means. I am not using the argument from religious principle, which would probably lead to your offered conclusion. I am using the argument from tradition.
It is tradition to use a naming system for days which happens to be based upon Norse gods. There is no particular reason to abandon this tradition, regardless of one's religious beliefs.
In the same way, it is a tradition to use AD/BC in this country--and at once, elsewhere. If Europe wants to change it to CE/BCE, well...fine, but I don't see any particular reason why--for the same reason why I see no reason to change the names of days.
It's not a blatant contradiction by a long shot. It is simply my questioning why one would necessarily want to alter tradition for the sake of altering it.
Good point. Americans tend to assume they constitute the entire world, when they're really just about 5 percent of the whole. A lot of American conventions are badly out of touch with the rest of humanity. And Star Trek is supposed to be about a global civilization, not just America in the future, although it often falls badly short of that intention.
^And yet, we are the superpower of the world--China possibly becoming the second one*, but still...we do possess superpower status. We may not be the world's some total, but we are one of the most influential world powers....
*(I'm currently unsure, considering its instability as of now, as to whether the EU counts....)
*(I'm currently unsure, considering its instability as of now, as to whether the EU counts....)
It was tradition for the fifth day of the week to be called Thor's Day, but this association was abandoned. Logically, you should favor restoring the German Paganic connection to Thursday if you are intellectually consistent.
The reasons why have been explained to you. It is impractical for the many, many millions of non-Christians who are part of Western society to use a calender other than the Gregorian in most circumstances, but they do not wish to be forced to use language that pays worship to a god in which they do not believe, so the year naming scheme is modified to CE/BCE.
For instance, my best friend is a Conservative Jew. She's American and, of course, must participate in American society; she uses the Gregorian calender for most purposes as a result. But you'll never catch her calling the year "2011 A.D." Because Jesus is not her Lord; she is Jewish and naturally believes that Jesus was not the Son of God. So she uses CE/BCE instead.
Is that really so hard to understand and empathize with, Rush? No one's saying you can't go on using "AD/BC." But there shouldn't be a social expectation that everyone use it, either.
ETA:
1. We're going to be one of several great powers rather than the over-riding superpower, and very soon.
2. So what? Being the most powerful country in the world doesn't make ethnocentric thinking okay.
Being a superpower does not give America the right to force one religious point of view on the whole planet. That idea is anathema to everything America represents.
It depends, I suppose, on how one defines "superpower." The United States is unique in the sense that it's a cultural, economic, and military power. China is an economic power, a rising military power, and not a cultural power. Europe is a cultural and economic power, but not a military power.
I've played Civ enough to know that being a military power is fine for the short-term, but over the long-term, for long-lasting influence, even though it's more difficult to achieve, cultural and economic power is vastly more beneficial.
Frankly, I was under the impression that "Thor's Day" merely went through a chronological corruption akin to "God be with ye" changing to "goodbye", etc.
I am making no such claim otherwise, Sci. As I said, if others (I'd used Europe as an example) don't want to use "AD/BC", fine. I just happen to think it's being a bit overly sensitive, akin to wanting to change from "Thursday", etc, because of its religious origins.
That is simply my opinion. It is not an imposition, nor an "expectation".
Which is why I added the disclaimer about China.
"Most powerful" mean "most influential". A significant amount of American culture (such as it is) has severely impacted the cultures of others--McDonald's, for one.
As it were...I am unsure as to exactly what you and Chris mean about "ethnocentric thinking".
Whoa--hold on, brother. Traditional dating terminology and declaring cultural jihad is hardly the same thing.
It's overly-sensitive for a Jew not to want to be pressured into using a phrase that declares Jesus to be her Lord?
To put it another way:
Let's say that history unfolded differently. Instead of the Christian civilizations of Europe experiencing the Renaissance and then engaging in a global quest for colonies, wealth, and domination, defeating the Islamic civilizations in the quest for global power, let's say that the Islamic world won. Let's say that the Islamic civilizations eventually colonized and dominated Europe in the same way the European civilizations did to the Middle East, and colonized North and South America, and dominated Asia for centuries, etc. And let's say that they had their own Enlightenment, and their own wars over colonies, and that things are generally roughly similar to how they are today. Most people in America are Muslim, most Muslims are about as tolerant of non-Muslims as Christians in America are in real life, and there's a minority population of Christians and Jews.
Now, because damn near everyone uses the Islamic calender. Religious institutions, government, civic organizations, businesses, secular organizations, etc. It's just the all-pervasive calender that everyone uses. And let's say that this Islamic America used a parallel year naming scheme; instead of "in the Year of Our Lord," they used the phrase, "in the Year of Allah," dating from the Hijra. (The real Islamic calender, when adapted to Western languages, uses the Latin phrase "anno Hegirae," "in the Year of the Hijra," but I'm altering that so it's a closer parallel.)
Now, if you're a Christian living in this Islamic alternate history, wouldn't you resent being pressured to use a phrase that declares belief in Islamic theology? If you lived in yet another alternate history, say, one where America is dominated by Hindus, wouldn't you object if you were pressured to use a phrase meaning "in the Year of our Lord Brahmin?" Wouldn't you prefer to use a phrase like "Common Era," that lets you use the same calender system the rest of society uses, but which doesn't pressure you to declare a god in which you don't believe to be your lord?
Then why did you bring America's relative power up at all?
Christopher pointed out that Americans are disconnected, culturally, from much of the rest of humanity. You countered by saying America is more powerful. The implication seeming to be, America can spread its practices to other cultures.
But why? You just said you prefer tradition. Why should America undermine other cultures' traditions like you just seemed to be saying it should?
Again, what's the point of bringing up American influence, when the point was that what is traditional in America is not traditional in the rest of the world, unless your intent was to say that you want to pressure other cultures to change?
Assuming Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their religions freely?
I wouldn't really care what the "official" dating system was. If those of my faith wanted to use their own personal dating system (as Muslim tradition has), and were allowed to do so, fine. But cultural tradition is as it is. Paul noted that he was to be "all things to all people". That is, adapt and adjust to the culture you are in. Such increases effectiveness of ministry.
Consider:
Simply being fair and playing devil's advocate. I did not make any such implications about impositions. If a nation want to preserve its culture--and that includes their own dating systems--they are welcome to it.
Time will prove the economic effects. A major reason American culture has spread so far involves superior economic and trade methods.
^Oh?
Consider. The United States had an advantage in the last century that no one else did which produced the American domination of trade and culture -- World War II. All the other major economies were seriously disrupted by the war. The American economy was untouched by the war, and combined with the scale of the American population, American industry was able to dominate the world's economy for the three decades after the end of the war. In short, there's nothing magical to the American dominance of the last century; the United States was simply historically lucky and had leaders political and economic who took advantage of it.
Maybe it is for those who are used to using AD/BC. Your mistake is in assuming that just because it's what you're used to, it's therefore what everyone's used to. That's wrong, as Allyn pointed out.
Where did you get the idea this was a new system? According to Wikipedia, the term "Common Era" dates back to the early 1700s and has been used ever since as a synonym for "Christian Era," even by many Christians. It's been used by Jews when referencing the Gregorian calendar for more than a century, and it's been the increasingly preferred notation in scholarly contexts since at least the 1980s. Heck, even the Jehovah's Witnesses have been using CE/BCE notation exclusively since 1964.
So they did. And other nations have, indeed, benefited from it. Japan, for one. Today, Japanese motor companies provide serious competition for American and European companied, to put ot mildly. And they wouldn't have benefited so well had it not been for the great influence of Western culture in general, and American culture in particular.
I make no such assumption. I am simply pointing out that those who are used to such systems, such as American society in general, thus have a set tradition thereof. As Edmund Burke often noted, if you're going to abandon tradition, you'd better have a darn good reason for it.
As Jefferson would add, if it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg...what's wrong with it?
New, in the sense of it being a theoretical societal norm.
Once again: CE/BCE, in and of itself, is not the problem. I have no problem whatsoever with people using their own terminology. The problem is: what's the point of it? I just find it amusing that people find the traditional terminology offensive. You don't believe it's "Our Lord"? Fine. It's just a convention. What's the problem with it?
One thing to bear in mind here is that TOS and its 24th century spinoffs were designed as American TV shows to appeal to a broad American audience to garner ratings, evolved under the straightjacket imposed by studio suits, and are therefor structurally ethnocentric. International sales in the American TV industry to this day remain a secondary concern (although international sales are becoming more and more important to film). Thus the future depicted in Star Trek reflects a future dominated by the United States and its 20th century allies.
The recent BBC series Outcasts showed a group of British dominated characters settling a new planet. And of course until BBC America and Starz (international sales) got involved with the Doctor Who franchise it was also British dominated. The production of science fiction is currently banned in China, but if they did a SF show I'm sure it would feature a Chinese speaking cast showing a future from a China POV.
Earth (and humans) dominating the Federation to the point that a human language is the standard used makes sense to the point that the other founding partners of the Federation had a history of distrust, Earth was seen as somewhat neutral, new on the scene, and willing to invest more lives and resources into exploring and building the Federation. After the Federation expanded from 5 to ~150 members, inertia dictated that Earth would still hold disproportionate influence being the seat of power, and an Earth language would be the one labeling Starfleet ships.
But why was American English the language that came to dominate Earth? From a real world point of view it is because Star Trek is American. An in-universe explanation is bound to be extremely controversial politically and has numerous unfortunate "un-PC" implications. The progressive future of Star Trek makes no sense without World War III. We know Colornel Green was involved in biological warfare, the enemy Eastern Coalition in First Contact was "China" according to Moore and Braga, that over 600 million were killed, the Post Atomic horror hit Asia hard, that many current United States, United Kingdom, and French landmarks were still around in the 24th century, and that Americans made first contact with Vulcans. Somehow the US and its allies came out ahead, and American English became the language of the democratic United Earth government, and two hundred years after that American Earth humans still dominated Starfleet. If someone wants to read between the lines on this one, more power to you.
The recent BBC series Outcasts showed a group of British dominated characters settling a new planet. And of course until BBC America and Starz (international sales) got involved with the Doctor Who franchise it was also British dominated. The production of science fiction is currently banned in China, but if they did a SF show I'm sure it would feature a Chinese speaking cast showing a future from a China POV.
Earth (and humans) dominating the Federation to the point that a human language is the standard used makes sense to the point that the other founding partners of the Federation had a history of distrust, Earth was seen as somewhat neutral, new on the scene, and willing to invest more lives and resources into exploring and building the Federation. After the Federation expanded from 5 to ~150 members, inertia dictated that Earth would still hold disproportionate influence being the seat of power, and an Earth language would be the one labeling Starfleet ships.
But why was American English the language that came to dominate Earth? From a real world point of view it is because Star Trek is American. An in-universe explanation is bound to be extremely controversial politically and has numerous unfortunate "un-PC" implications. The progressive future of Star Trek makes no sense without World War III. We know Colornel Green was involved in biological warfare, the enemy Eastern Coalition in First Contact was "China" according to Moore and Braga, that over 600 million were killed, the Post Atomic horror hit Asia hard, that many current United States, United Kingdom, and French landmarks were still around in the 24th century, and that Americans made first contact with Vulcans. Somehow the US and its allies came out ahead, and American English became the language of the democratic United Earth government, and two hundred years after that American Earth humans still dominated Starfleet. If someone wants to read between the lines on this one, more power to you.
Last edited:
In terms of American society, sure. BCE/CE is an uncommon usage. I've noted that several times in the thread.
In terms of the Star Trek universe, though, BCE/CE is almost certainly the societal norm for humanity, because in the Roddenberry future atheism has won the historical argument and triumphed over religion and myth. The BCE/CE notation is certainly the norm in the literature.
I don't care which calendar notation system someone uses. Hell, if someone wants to date from the fall of Numenor and the breaking of the world, let them, so long as I understand what they're talking about.
- Status