From: Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com>
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, JAY JG wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself, the issue is not about which version is
better, or "POV", or "extremist", but about attempts by editors to
enforce
their own views on the matter. And I don't think this list is the place to
discuss the pro and con arguments regarding use of BCE/CE vs. BC/AD.
Then JAY JG wrote:
Sigh. Until 40 years ago or so the word "Colored" for
"African-American"
was used near-universally in the United States,
and was seen as
"neutral" as
well. Before that the neutral and
near-universally used term was
"Negro".
They're now seen as offensive, though I'm
sure some older users of the
terms
see (or saw) their replacements as
"nonsense" and a "POV lobby".
Regardless, I imagine that none of the members of this list would use
those
terms today, and there are many other examples of
this kind of thing
(e.g.
"Mohammedan"->"Moslem"->"Muslim").
Language changes, and English probably changes faster than most other
languages; usages that were once thought neutral are now seen to contain
inherent bias. This has happened with other terms in the past, and may
be
happening with BC/AD today. Now, can we move the
debate about BCE/CE
vs.
BC/AD to where it belongs, on some policy page?
If you want the conversation taken off-list, then take it off-list
yourself.
Don't use it as an attempt to get the final word.
And furthermore, BC/AD is completely POV. So there. :-P
Jay.