Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political correctness

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by Swennilsson View Post
    It may well be that this discussion is a little out of place on a DNA discussion board. However, since many people have chimed in anyway, I will join them. I personally think the change to "BCE" and "CE" was rather silly, and motivated by political/social notions rather than any practical reasons. Perhaps I sound mean, but I frankly do not worry about offending people, especially if they are fools. I do not care if the origin of some term or unit of measurement had an arbitrary origin, e.g., an inch being the length of a certain number of barley corns. If it has worked well over time, I am fine with it. But everyone can make their own decisions on what terms they like. As for me, "BC" and "AD" have conveyed the time frame for a couple thousand years, and I have no plan to change just because some weenies fear someone might be offended. If they are, too bad.
    Gee, and for some reason I called this discussion pointlessly divisive. I should have known that it would descend into name-calling sooner or later!

    The bolded quotes above illustrate that there can't be rational discussion of an issue like this. So why tear each other up over what's essentially personally held beliefs, especially when they have nothing to do with genetic genealogy?
    Last edited by MMaddi; 21 April 2017, 10:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carpathian
    replied
    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    @Carpathian, To me the use of BCE and CE are old standards as I have been using them since I came across the concept of universal dating in college which was over 50 years ago. I never think in terms of BC (Before Christ) or AD (in the year of the Lord) anymore. Since the use of BCE and CE have become increasingly more popular through the decades this whole discussion seems somewhat out dated and pointless.
    Keigh,
    This concept hasn't been universally accepted for 50 years, as you stated, as attested by your college experience. It is actually much older than that, but it has now recently become fashionable again, to serve a purpose. "Popular", indeed. Collegiate "Style Guides" now prevail.

    I hope everyone reads this link, as it provides a fuller understanding of the topic:

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

    We are now living in the Vulgar Era. "This too shall pass."

    P.S. Despite what you may think or say or advocate, neither "this whole discussion" nor history is ever "out dated and pointless".

    Leave a comment:


  • Swennilsson
    replied
    It may well be that this discussion is a little out of place on a DNA discussion board. However, since many people have chimed in anyway, I will join them. I personally think the change to "BCE" and "CE" was rather silly, and motivated by political/social notions rather than any practical reasons. Perhaps I sound mean, but I frankly do not worry about offending people, especially if they are fools. I do not care if the origin of some term or unit of measurement had an arbitrary origin, e.g., an inch being the length of a certain number of barley corns. If it has worked well over time, I am fine with it. But everyone can make their own decisions on what terms they like. As for me, "BC" and "AD" have conveyed the time frame for a couple thousand years, and I have no plan to change just because some weenies fear someone might be offended. If they are, too bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    Since the use of BCE and CE have become increasingly more popular through the decades this whole discussion seems somewhat out dated and pointless.
    Exactly. I still use BC when discussing results from ancient DNA remains, but I'm not offended in the least that the standard abbreviations have shifted to BCE and CE. I can't believe that a minor change in an acronym can get people so upset.

    As I posted before, the discussion is political (as in the thread's title, "Political Correctness," chosen by the original poster) and really has no place on a genetic genealogy board. It's not about genetic genealogy at all and it's pointlessly divisive. I suggest that those who think this is a big issue in their mind find a more appropriate place to debate it.

    Leave a comment:


  • keigh
    replied
    @Carpathian, To me the use of BCE and CE are old standards as I have been using them since I came across the concept of universal dating in college which was over 50 years ago. I never think in terms of BC (Before Christ) or AD (in the year of the Lord) anymore. Since the use of BCE and CE have become increasingly more popular through the decades this whole discussion seems somewhat out dated and pointless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carpathian
    replied
    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    Personally the use of BCE or CE doesn't bother me. It simply reflects the fact that the majority of the world doesn't use the same calendar dating that was imposed by Western or European Christians on other populations. To 2/3rd of the world's population the year isn't AD or anno Domini. And FTDNA is a world wide company and, therefore, needs to use term accepted in a world wide system.
    @keigh,

    Are the 2/3 of the world's population that you cite who are not "Western or European Christians" now FTDNA customers and/or engaged in doing ancestral searches, nowpresent here in FTDNA in that ratio? Are they in a majority now?

    Why should any small minority that exists in any community or population be accommodated to the point of having the majority accept revision of the terminology of their ancestral past to suit other minority ethnic groups? Who is dictating these terms?

    Leave a comment:


  • keigh
    replied
    Personally the use of BCE or CE doesn't bother me. It simply reflects the fact that the majority of the world doesn't use the same calendar dating that was imposed by Western or European Christians on other populations. To 2/3rd of the world's population the year isn't AD or anno Domini. And FTDNA is a world wide company and, therefore, needs to use term accepted in a world wide system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carpathian
    replied
    Originally posted by MoberlyDrake View Post
    Actually, I prefer to stick with B.C. and A.D. not because of any political correctness or vice versa, but simply because it's been in use so long and occurs in hundreds of years of documents and publications. Change it and generations to come will have to learn them as obsolete terms.
    I agree. But for terms to become obsolete there is a motive or agenda for making them obsolete. As with revisionist history, over time there will arise a realization that there was an element of imposition involved. Eventually the obsolete ideas or terms will be rediscovered. Everything old will be new again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yde
    replied
    Year 0

    It is about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    About an enemy.

    In those circles they don't like to be reminded of some.

    Therefore they use the term ybp, years before present, so we have to make a new calculation every year - of a MRCA born 50 ybp.

    Leave a comment:


  • MoberlyDrake
    replied
    Actually, I prefer to stick with B.C. and A.D. not because of any political correctness or vice versa, but simply because it's been in use so long and occurs in hundreds of years of documents and publications. Change it and generations to come will have to learn them as obsolete terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Gee, I thought this was a board to discuss genetic genealogy. I must have taken a wrong turn somehow and ended up on a board where hot button political issues are debated.

    I'm very active politically and I try to be tolerant of everyone's personal views. But I don't come on this board to debate them. There must be some other place online where people who get worked up about this issue - on both sides of it - can go to try to tear each other down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carpathian
    replied
    Originally posted by Turtleygoodness View Post

    Revisionism, true, but in a way that less people find offensive. Only a person who think that their religion, ideas, traditions and culture should be preeminent over everyone else's would be offended.
    This is what mob rule and social revisionism have in common: both appeal to a politically and socially motivated minority, one that pretends to be and aspires to become a majority through relentless vociferous debate, by continually challenging, rejecting and redefining cultural terms and saying they are "offended" by words and traditional terms. The more people who can be enlisted by their movement and proclaim to be "offended", the greater they hope their numbers will grow, such that they might become the majority. This is the goal of the new culture of victimhood.

    This is what perpetual adolescents and revolutionaries do: they rebel against the social order, hoping to become dominant themselves. Then, if they ever do become the dominant majority, they will have become that which they supposedly rejected, initially.

    Only those who rebel against predominant ideas, traditions and culture in a free and liberal society are "offended" by it. Those are the same "ideas, traditions and culture" that allow their dissent.

    "Revisionism, true..."
    Yes, your admission is correct. The revisionist strategy is exposed and revealed.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ulture/404794/

    It's a politically motivated diversion. Even if this temporal strategy were eventually to succeed in trying to diminish and eradicate two thousand years of Western civilization and history, the result might be disruptive, but would not be permanent.

    "This too shall pass."

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Note that BCE and CE can be interpreted as

    Before the Christian Era
    (in) the Christian Era

    This interpretation explicitly acknowledges the origin of our dating system without actually using the personal terms Christ and Lord.

    By analogy, use of the Islamic calendar in the Roman alphabet is typically expressed as

    BH = Before the Hijira
    AH = Anno (in the year) of the Hijira

    The Hijira is a religious event but not a person. Those who object to religious dating will need to think up new abbreviations for publication in Muslim countries.

    Similarly, those who publish in Israel will need to think up a new abbreviation, because the usual

    AM = Anno Mundi (in the year of the world)

    refers to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
    Last edited by lgmayka; 19 April 2017, 06:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • AFH
    replied
    Originally posted by Carolina View Post
    I wish FamilyTreeDNA (MyOrigins) would use B.C. (Before Christ) instead of BCE, and A.D. (Anno Domini) instead of CE! Stop the political correctness. Everyone knows that in the West we count what year it is starting from Christ's birth (even if some think we are off about 4 years) - why deny it by introducing a new way? It's ridiculous.
    I prefer BCE it's and it's their decision to make. Why do you feel like you have the right to impose your beliefs and culture on others?

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by Turtleygoodness View Post
    Revisionism, true, but in a way that less people find offensive. Only a person who think that their religion, ideas, traditions and culture should be preeminent over everyone else's would be offended.
    Amen to that - pun intended.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X