Giving up?

[frualeydis]

I have as long as I have been teaching used the swedish equivalent of "common era" and "before common era" instead of the older "before Christ". I also explain why: That it's religiously neutral, that it emphasizes that it's a convention, but also that we really can't say exactly when Christ was born. And of course that that's the way it's done in research and books nowadays.

But I'm considering giving up and go back to "before Christ", since that may decrease the amount of students who claim that the christian church had influence and indeed existed during the roman republic, or any other time BCE. Then they just might make the connection between a date before Christ and there not being any christians around. It ought to help; but one never knows of course.

Comments

[operafantomet.livejournal.com]

...and then you have archeology, which operates with B.P. - "before present". Which basically refers to "today"... but "today" is an everchanging size, which is updated every 50 year or so... and you need to do some math to be able to understand what year someone is actually talking about....

Not easy to date something in an academic and historical context...

[folo1.livejournal.com]

But Jesus wasn't important until at most the third decade of the common era, and not really important until a bit later. And since the BCE/CE dating is probably up to four years off from his birth, it becomes a wee bit misleading.

We'll not even get into the fact that "Christ" is a religious title, and its use might be provocative to non-Christians. Since I've heard many atheists and Jews provlaim "Jesus Christ!" when dismayed or surprised, I don't know hiow important that is (my wife is tryingh to teach me to be more sensitive to the feelings of peoples such as the Jews about Mormons).

I use bce/ce in all my writings, and no one has complained (a few might think it means "Before the Christian Era" and "Christian Era," but I think harping on the actual meaning is more confrontational even that using the old dating terms).

But then, I'm not an academic. I can understand how you want to educate your kids and not put roadblocks between you and their learning from you. Since you had not madea final decision, I just wanted you to know what another part thought.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

What a good answer. It's the religious bias I try to avoid too, but actually I just wanted to complain that students are f***ing stupid somestimes.


/Eva

[jauncourt.livejournal.com]

I got this. In fact, if I can find my telephone (I hid it from myself) I am going to call my mom and tell her what you wrote, because she will be hugely amused.

[therru.livejournal.com]

It pains me somewhat that fact and neutrality should have to defer to religious stupidity.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Not religious stupidity as much as plain stupidity.

/Eva

[therru.livejournal.com]

Really? Arrgh.

[love3angle.livejournal.com]

"Then they just might make the connection between a date before Christ and there not being any christians around."

LOL! If they haven't put that together yet, I think any name you use will not help in the least. They are averse to thinking at all.

[marccarlson.livejournal.com]

Well, you could always just add 753 years to the date and go with A.U.C. ...

"Why yes, that find dates from the 22nd century A. U. C. What? You don't date things from founding of the city of Rome? Peasant."

[nazgman.livejournal.com]

Don't give up. Those students are there to learn something, for Christ's sake! ;)

I've seen BCE/CE used relatively frequently, as well as BP. You use it too, so the kids are very likely to bump into it, at exams e.g. So they'd better learn it. As with all TLA's I feel they should be defined when first used in a text (unless they are so common that they can be found in a dictionary).

You teach them properly it seems, so if they are too stupid or rigid to accept your definitions they don't deserve an academic degree IMHO. University is *not* school where bad grades can't be given because it would discourage the pupils.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Stupid is the thing, they're not fanatic christians, they're just too stupid to make the connection. And that's what really scares me.

/Eva