|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 31, 2023 15:42:14 GMT
And like everything there are reasons presented or because people stop doing something out of a choice. Someone and it is not known if was a secularist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist or a Hindu or even a Christian decided that Christ should not be used in a universal system of dating history and managed to inveigle a change in the accepted wording to make it more inclusive in teh process managing to further alienate those who see no reason to change. universal dating though sandy has always been argued over. Things change as people say above , as we become better informed, or our views move away from some cherry picked point of history. The dating of easter for example was regularly argued over between the medieval Scottish church , whose views aligned more closely to eastern orthodoxism , than the roman Catholic Church . Calendars have changed many times over the years from the birth of christ to the modern era. don't worry about it. As Ripley says , we perfectly understand what is meant , and that's all that matters. I do not disagree however irrespective of the Christian history, which realistically means nothing, it was accepted for many years that BC and AD were the standard references in all history books, programmes and references that I can recall from school and television. The question remains is why has it changed. Is it to remove Christ from a standard reference even though the point of his birth, notwithstanding the arguments in that respect, was fixed no matter which system was used. No one has presented a good reason why it should change even though there are many good reasons why it should not. Worrying about is accepting cultural shift as a policy. You would not accept a change from a system that evolved from Scottish History was widely used and then changed with no reason why to reflect British history but meant exactly the same and removed Scotland from its reference. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 31, 2023 15:43:16 GMT
I'm not surprised you marvelled at the ability of Londoners to write, after all, 1 in 4 adults in Scotland experience challenges due to their lack of literacy skills. In England, only 1 in 6 adults have poor literacy skills...
In correlation with the different sizes of a shot measured in fractions of a gill. Probably not a coincidence. Think on the bright side monte , Scots whiskey sales , much of which goes abroad , is helping keep Englands treasury afloat. ( 9% of the uk population , and whiskey alone accounts for 25% of uk food and drink exports. ) I don't drink much whiskey monte , but I would rather drink toilet duck than live in londons knife crime capital....hackney. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 31, 2023 15:54:10 GMT
universal dating though sandy has always been argued over. Things change as people say above , as we become better informed, or our views move away from some cherry picked point of history. The dating of easter for example was regularly argued over between the medieval Scottish church , whose views aligned more closely to eastern orthodoxism , than the roman Catholic Church . Calendars have changed many times over the years from the birth of christ to the modern era. don't worry about it. As Ripley says , we perfectly understand what is meant , and that's all that matters. I do not disagree however irrespective of the Christian history, which realistically means nothing, it was accepted for many years that BC and AD were the standard references in all history books, programmes and references that I can recall from school and television. The question remains is why has it changed. Is it to remove Christ from a standard reference even though the point of his birth, notwithstanding the arguments in that respect, was fixed no matter which system was used. No one has presented a good reason why it should change even though there are many good reasons why it should not. Worrying about is accepting cultural shift as a policy. You would not accept a change from a system that evolved from Scottish History was widely used and then changed with no reason why to reflect British history but meant exactly the same and removed Scotland from its reference. sandy , how can you demand we stick to christian dating in historical terms as you know it , then tell me christian history in our own country means nothing to you? The point is things change. They have changed in the past , and they will change In the future .You seem to want to cherry pick something you are comfortable with , then demand this never changes. Ripley has given you his explanation of why he thinks this has changed. ok but how is this relevant to bc and ad ? anno domini is latin , not English or Gaelic , so im unsure why you are upset about a latin name being changed.? It's a bit different to say being forced to change language , or not being deliberately taught your own countries history wouldn't you say? I don't really see the cultural significance of wether we use bc and ad or something else. If I did , I would champion your crusade , but to me it's irrelevant. Im neither a christian , or catholic , not really that fussed about the use of latin . In the grand scheme of things going on in the world , being honest is this really relevant to most folk sandy? |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Dec 31, 2023 15:54:58 GMT
Well I have often wondered how much whiskey must have been drank for someone to write happy 30th birthday grandma on a railway bridge last time I was in hackney. could be right..... I'm not surprised you marvelled at the ability of Londoners to write, after all, 1 in 4 adults in Scotland experience challenges due to their lack of literacy skills. In England, only 1 in 6 adults have poor literacy skills...
The article you linked is comparing levels of literacy across the UK using an inconsistent yardstick. 1 in 6 (16.4% / 7.1 million people) adults in England have very poor literacy skills. 1 in 4 (26.7% / 931,000 people) adults in Scotland experience challenges due to their lack of literacy skills. 1 in 8 (12% / 216,000 people) adults in Wales lack basic literacy skills. 1 in 5 (17.4% / 256,000 people) adults in Northern Ireland have very poor literacy skills.
If I had to rank them in order of literacy competency based on these descriptions, Wales would be the lowest ("lack basic literacy skills"), England and Northern Ireland would rank slightly higher ("Very poor literacy skills"), and Scotland would come out on top because here the author refrains from the descriptions used for the other three places and instead of measuring on the same scale (very poor to lacking basic skills) can only say "experience challenges due to their lack of literacy skills". This infers that 1 in 4 Scots do not lack basic literacy skills nor are their literacy skills very poor, or presumably he'd have said so. Even people with a degree of literacy can experience some challenges. The challenges facing people with very poor literacy skills will be a lot worse. I say that as someone who has taught functionally illiterate adults who were stuck in dead end jobs and couldn't drive because they couldn't read, and couldn't perform simple routine tasks the rest of us take for granted. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 31, 2023 16:05:10 GMT
I do not disagree however irrespective of the Christian history, which realistically means nothing, it was accepted for many years that BC and AD were the standard references in all history books, programmes and references that I can recall from school and television. The question remains is why has it changed. Is it to remove Christ from a standard reference even though the point of his birth, notwithstanding the arguments in that respect, was fixed no matter which system was used. No one has presented a good reason why it should change even though there are many good reasons why it should not. Worrying about is accepting cultural shift as a policy. You would not accept a change from a system that evolved from Scottish History was widely used and then changed with no reason why to reflect British history but meant exactly the same and removed Scotland from its reference. sandy , how can you demand we stick to christian dating in historical terms as you know it , then tell me christian history in our own country means nothing to you? The point is things change. They have changed in the past , and they will change In the future .You seem to want to cherry pick something you are comfortable with , then demand this never changes. Ripley has given you his explanation of why he thinks this has changed. ok but how is this relevant to bc and ad ? anno domini is latin , not English or Gaelic , so im unsure why you are upset about a latin name being changed.? It's a bit different to say being forced to change language , or not being deliberately taught your own countries history wouldn't you say? I don't really see the cultural significance of wether we use bc and ad or something else. If I did , I would champion your crusade , but to me it's irrelevant. Im neither a christian , or catholic , not really that fussed about the use of latin . In the grand scheme of things going on in the world , being honest is this really relevant to most folk sandy? Probably not relevant to most folks but then again they are not looking at the issue and we use latin all the time in biology and no one seems to object. Some scholars like to quote latin and many phrases are used daily in our language. Any idea why it was changed to something more cumbersome. Not caring whether it was changed or not is not the issue. Ripley has explained the problems within Christianity as regards fixing teh date but BC and AD to historians is clearly fixed in time, so the Christian outlook and dispiutes in really not relevant as we have been using BC and AD as standardised notation for centuries. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 31, 2023 16:16:57 GMT
sandy , how can you demand we stick to christian dating in historical terms as you know it , then tell me christian history in our own country means nothing to you? The point is things change. They have changed in the past , and they will change In the future .You seem to want to cherry pick something you are comfortable with , then demand this never changes. Ripley has given you his explanation of why he thinks this has changed. ok but how is this relevant to bc and ad ? anno domini is latin , not English or Gaelic , so im unsure why you are upset about a latin name being changed.? It's a bit different to say being forced to change language , or not being deliberately taught your own countries history wouldn't you say? I don't really see the cultural significance of wether we use bc and ad or something else. If I did , I would champion your crusade , but to me it's irrelevant. Im neither a christian , or catholic , not really that fussed about the use of latin . In the grand scheme of things going on in the world , being honest is this really relevant to most folk sandy? Probably not relevant to most folks but then again they are not looking at the issue and we use latin all the time in biology and no one seems to object. Some scholars like to quote latin and many phrases are used daily in our language. Any idea why it was changed to something more cumbersome. Not caring whether it was changed or not is not the issue. Ripley has explained the problems within Christianity as regards fixing teh date but BC and AD to historians is clearly fixed in time, so the Christian outlook and dispiutes in really not relevant as we have been using BC and AD as standardised notation for centuries. I was taught latin in classical studies in the late eighties sandy , and while I found it of interest , it has little to no practical use in my daily life. England , and its colonies , as I understand it , had a different calendar to Scotland and much of Western Europe until the mid eighteenth century , so your uproar at different datings and use of terms to date things seem more of a modern gripe. You seem to be implying standardised terms that have existed for centuries across the board , that are only now being changed when the opposite is true. The historical norm was different , not standardised. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 31, 2023 20:06:01 GMT
Probably not relevant to most folks but then again they are not looking at the issue and we use latin all the time in biology and no one seems to object. Some scholars like to quote latin and many phrases are used daily in our language. Any idea why it was changed to something more cumbersome. Not caring whether it was changed or not is not the issue. Ripley has explained the problems within Christianity as regards fixing teh date but BC and AD to historians is clearly fixed in time, so the Christian outlook and dispiutes in really not relevant as we have been using BC and AD as standardised notation for centuries. I was taught latin in classical studies in the late eighties sandy , and while I found it of interest , it has little to no practical use in my daily life. England , and its colonies , as I understand it , had a different calendar to Scotland and much of Western Europe until the mid eighteenth century , so your uproar at different datings and use of terms to date things seem more of a modern gripe. You seem to be implying standardised terms that have existed for centuries across the board , that are only now being changed when the opposite is true. The historical norm was different , not standardised. Are you saying BC and AD were not standardised terms, or at least not very widely used, over the last two hundred years or so in the West and many other places. Even in Russia if my failed Russian o level memory is complete they used BC and AD. Go back fifteen years or so and all teaching aids referred only to BC and AD. The terms were standardised in the West and much of the East (Europe). If it is a Common Era why not just stick to the BC, it means the same and is much more succinct than BCE. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 2, 2024 11:11:00 GMT
I was taught latin in classical studies in the late eighties sandy , and while I found it of interest , it has little to no practical use in my daily life. England , and its colonies , as I understand it , had a different calendar to Scotland and much of Western Europe until the mid eighteenth century , so your uproar at different datings and use of terms to date things seem more of a modern gripe. You seem to be implying standardised terms that have existed for centuries across the board , that are only now being changed when the opposite is true. The historical norm was different , not standardised. Are you saying BC and AD were not standardised terms, or at least not very widely used, over the last two hundred years or so in the West and many other places. Even in Russia if my failed Russian o level memory is complete they used BC and AD. Go back fifteen years or so and all teaching aids referred only to BC and AD. The terms were standardised in the West and much of the East (Europe). If it is a Common Era why not just stick to the BC, it means the same and is much more succinct than BCE. I thought although terms like anno domini go back to the medieval times , they weren't widely used as a standard , and that it was in part the spread of the British empire that made them widely standardised. Having said that , ive read terms such as before the christian era and Christian era go back as far as the early 18th century. I think Ripley might have mentioned the fact. My point again that you have ignored is when England didnt even have the same calendar as Scotland and the rest of Western Europe for 150 years , why the fuss about ad and bc in reference to history? Seems to me sandy nothing more than a British baby boomer bemoaning yet another decline in what he once took as a British norm. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 2, 2024 14:39:07 GMT
Are you saying BC and AD were not standardised terms, or at least not very widely used, over the last two hundred years or so in the West and many other places. Even in Russia if my failed Russian o level memory is complete they used BC and AD. Go back fifteen years or so and all teaching aids referred only to BC and AD. The terms were standardised in the West and much of the East (Europe). If it is a Common Era why not just stick to the BC, it means the same and is much more succinct than BCE. I thought although terms like anno domini go back to the medieval times , they weren't widely used as a standard , and that it was in part the spread of the British empire that made them widely standardised. Having said that , ive read terms such as before the christian era and Christian era go back as far as the early 18th century. I think Ripley might have mentioned the fact. My point again that you have ignored is when England didnt even have the same calendar as Scotland and the rest of Western Europe for 150 years , why the fuss about ad and bc in reference to history? Seems to me sandy nothing more than a British baby boomer bemoaning yet another decline in what he once took as a British norm. Probably so but there has to be a reason why a pretty universal method was changed to something that is a bit more cumbersome but removes Christ from the notation. Once again you delve into far flung history, I am asking why a system, widely used in Scotland and England and all over the world for the last few hundred years has suddenly been changed. The point as regards Christianity for me is that I am an Atheist and have no objection to Christ being used as a historical dating regime either as the fixed point or as the notation for that fixed point as that is the recent historical way most people conformed to. Now it is something else and th only explanation is well things change. Indeed they do but why as there is no good reason to change in this instance. as far back as I can remember BC and AD were the standards used As a case in point I have been watching University Challenge on an off for over 50 years, as well as Mastermind and a multitude of other Quiz shows. In every single one BC and AD were used. Everyone knows that Rome invaded Britain in AD 43 and the Vikings started raiding in AD 866 and Stonehenge commenced building approx 3100BC. It is the sudden change from BC to BCE that makes one wonder why as there seems no good, sound, logical reason. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 2, 2024 15:20:02 GMT
I thought although terms like anno domini go back to the medieval times , they weren't widely used as a standard , and that it was in part the spread of the British empire that made them widely standardised. Having said that , ive read terms such as before the christian era and Christian era go back as far as the early 18th century. I think Ripley might have mentioned the fact. My point again that you have ignored is when England didnt even have the same calendar as Scotland and the rest of Western Europe for 150 years , why the fuss about ad and bc in reference to history? Seems to me sandy nothing more than a British baby boomer bemoaning yet another decline in what he once took as a British norm. Probably so but there has to be a reason why a pretty universal method was changed to something that is a bit more cumbersome but removes Christ from the notation. Once again you delve into far flung history, I am asking why a system, widely used in Scotland and England and all over the world for the last few hundred years has suddenly been changed. The point as regards Christianity for me is that I am an Atheist and have no objection to Christ being used as a historical dating regime either as the fixed point or as the notation for that fixed point as that is the recent historical way most people conformed to. Now it is something else and th only explanation is well things change. Indeed they do but why as there is no good reason to change in this instance. as far back as I can remember BC and AD were the standards used As a case in point I have been watching University Challenge on an off for over 50 years, as well as Mastermind and a multitude of other Quiz shows. In every single one BC and AD were used. Everyone knows that Rome invaded Britain in AD 43 and the Vikings started raiding in AD 866 and Stonehenge commenced building approx 3100BC. It is the sudden change from BC to BCE that makes one wonder why as there seems no good, sound, logical reason. Its been said many a time , but I repeat again... 1. As someone who is interested in history , I don't think it's important. 2. Decline of Christianity means references to latin and christ surely is outdated and irrelevant? 3. Decline of the British empire which perhaps spread these terms ? 4. As mentioned above , things change. That's what history is , the collection of stories of the changing habits and behaviour of mankind . I quite like the new references instead of the old ad and bc. I seriously wouldn't worry about it sandy. Next you will be complaining about the americanisation of Scots or British English , with kids talking about trash cans or calling nappies diapers. The world changes sandy , wether you like it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 2, 2024 19:46:36 GMT
The Julian calendar took effect in 45 BC by edict of Julius Caesar to replace the previous largely lunisolar Roman calendar which had allowed politicians to adjust the length of the year to their political advantage. Caesar's intention was to create a calendar that remained aligned to the sun without any human intervention. The solar Julian calendar was designed in consultation with Greek mathematicians and astronomers. This calendar overestimated the length of the average solar year by less than a day per century, so it gained 3.1 days every 400 years. Nevertheless, it was predominant in most of the Western world for more than 1600 years. Over time the Julian calendar gradually drifted away from astronomical events such as the equinoxes. The author of the AD/BC system, Dionysius Exiguus, entered the scene when the Julian calendar was in use. One of his intentions was to totally eliminate the name of the Emperor Diocletian in any reference to a time chart. In fact AD originally meant “Anni Diocletiani” which related to the beginning of his reign at 284 AD. So severe were Diocletian’s persecution and punishments against the Christian community that Dionysius did not believe it was right to associate the acronym AD with his name, so he changed it arbitrarily to Anno Domini. In 1582, Pope Gregory Xlll introduced his papal bull “Inter gravissimas” (Among the most serious), a reform which replaced the civil Julian calendar to better correspond to important ecclesiastical dates such as Easter and also to get the calendar back in sync with the astronomical seasons. To do this, many adjustments were made and ultimately the Gregorian calendar, also known as the Christian or Western calendar, had 13 fewer days than its predecessor. Chaos ensued. The Pope’s bull had no authority outside the Catholic church and the Papal States but was immediately adopted by Europe’s major Catholic powers. The Protestant countries refused to adopt it until the 18th century, and the Eastern European countries only adopted it after WW1, with Greece only adopting it in 1923. Most Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches have not adopted it and continue to use the Julian calendar for ecclesiastical purposes but the Gregorian calendar for civil purposes. A calendar similar to the Julian one, the Alexandrian calendar, is the basis for the Ethiopian calendar, which is still the civil calendar of Ethiopia. It took more than three centuries from 1582 to 1927 for the Gregorian calendar to be adopted almost everywhere, so one might say that the Christian or Western calendar has only been universally used for about 100 years, compared to the Julian calendar’s 1627 year run. Today, Christianity is still the most widely practiced religion in the world. Given that there are 8.1 billion people on earth and fewer than a quarter of them are Christian, why should the calendar be tied to Christianity, or to any religion for that matter. When Islam’s 1.8 billion followers exceed Christianity’s 2 billion, will you be able to justify the calendar being tied to that religion instead, just because it predominates? www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendarcharlesasullivan.com/1842/dionysius-exiguus-and-the-ad-calendar-system/www.britannica.com/story/what-is-the-most-widely-practiced-religion-in-the-world |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 2, 2024 20:18:04 GMT
Probably so but there has to be a reason why a pretty universal method was changed to something that is a bit more cumbersome but removes Christ from the notation. Once again you delve into far flung history, I am asking why a system, widely used in Scotland and England and all over the world for the last few hundred years has suddenly been changed. The point as regards Christianity for me is that I am an Atheist and have no objection to Christ being used as a historical dating regime either as the fixed point or as the notation for that fixed point as that is the recent historical way most people conformed to. Now it is something else and th only explanation is well things change. Indeed they do but why as there is no good reason to change in this instance. as far back as I can remember BC and AD were the standards used As a case in point I have been watching University Challenge on an off for over 50 years, as well as Mastermind and a multitude of other Quiz shows. In every single one BC and AD were used. Everyone knows that Rome invaded Britain in AD 43 and the Vikings started raiding in AD 866 and Stonehenge commenced building approx 3100BC. It is the sudden change from BC to BCE that makes one wonder why as there seems no good, sound, logical reason. Its been said many a time , but I repeat again... 1. As someone who is interested in history , I don't think it's important. 2. Decline of Christianity means references to latin and christ surely is outdated and irrelevant? 3. Decline of the British empire which perhaps spread these terms ? 4. As mentioned above , things change. That's what history is , the collection of stories of the changing habits and behaviour of mankind . I quite like the new references instead of the old ad and bc. I seriously wouldn't worry about it sandy. Next you will be complaining about the americanisation of Scots or British English , with kids talking about trash cans or calling nappies diapers. The world changes sandy , wether you like it or not. 1 It may not be. 2 Many things have declined but we still refer to them in everyday sayings. Like so poor he has not got a pot to piss in, but it tells the tale even if needing the pot is not important as we no longer sell the piss. 3 The British Empire may have spread the terms but the change seems to be centered here. 4 Indeed things change but normally we know why and it is not a change of use through falling into disuse it is a specific decision to change it. I am not overtly worried about it but once a change is suddenly produced for no good reason it may be in something trivial and generally of no importance but it easily paves the way for the big changes that are suddenly thrust upon you. As a student of history you should know that. "One step at a time". "Give an inch they take a mile" "softly softly catchee monkey" etc etc. |
|
