BBC to scrap the use of AD and BC,polical correctness gone mad.

Mike 1972

zerks wrote: »

Part of the ISLAND of Ireland,jeez some people become so pedantic yet still fail to make any telling contribution to the thread-yes you Mike1972. Next you'll be going on about the Commonwealth.:rolleyes:

Commonwealth NOT = the United Kingdom (and why the fup are you directing comments at me in response to a post by someone else)

Its hardly pedantic to point out that someone is talking through their vagina (AND continues doing so when called up on it) I guess youre kinda new to this debating lark ?

Next thing youll be telling us the United States is an Island :rolleyes:

El Weirdo

I recommend that anyone who gets worked up about any Daily Mail article takes a look at this site before they come on to Boards to rant about "PC gone mad!!!1111!ELEVEN!!".

Here's what they have to say about this particular issue:

BC and AD not 'jettisoned' by BBC

Last Sunday, Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens wrote:

The BBC’s Chief Commissar for Political Correctness (whom I imagine as a tall, stern young woman in cruel glasses issuing edicts from an austere office) was hard at work again last week.

On University Challenge, Jeremy Paxman referred to a date as being Common Era, rather than AD. This nasty formulation is designed to write Christianity out of our culture.

One week on, and his paper has decided this observation is worthy of the front page lead:

The article by Chris Hastings begins:

The BBC has been accused of 'absurd political correctness' after dropping the terms BC and AD in case they offend non-Christians.

The Corporation has replaced the familiar Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ with the obscure terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

'Jettisoned'. 'Dropped'. 'Replaced'.

But skip to the statement from the BBC - inevitably relegated to the very last paragraph of the story - and we're told:

The BBC said last night: 'The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.'

So the BBC uses both. Indeed, Hastings' article proves BC and AD haven't been 'jettisoned' when he points out:

The terms are not confined to religious output and have also been used in news bulletins. Some reports add to the confusion by switching between both terms in the same item.

He goes on to quote several people unhappy with the BBC, who seem to believe BC and AD have, indeed, been 'dropped' (probably because that's what Hastings told them when he asked for their reaction). But he also gets a quote from Today and Mastemind presenter John Humphrys who says:

"I will continue to use AD and BC because I don't see a problem."

Despite this Hastings believes his story is true and he knows what's behind it:

This is not the first time the BBC has caused controversy over its use of alien language to promote a politically correct, Europhile agenda.

It's not clear why CE and BCE are deemed 'alien' or 'Europhile'. It's not as if the terms are new - the Mail on Sunday includes a box which dates them back to the mid-nineteenth century. It also says they are becoming 'particularly common in the United States'.

In the article, Simon Schama says he's been 'familar' with BC and BCE 'since the Fifties'. And, as Hastings points out, it's not even as if the BBC has only just started using the terms - one example he highlights dates from March 2010:

Last year, Northern Ireland correspondent William Crawley referred to the construction of the Temple of Solomon in about 950 BCE.

So Hastings has the BBC quote denying the terms have been dropped. He has a prominent BBC presenter saying he's going to keep using the BC and AD. And he has his own evidence saying BBC journalists are 'switching between both terms'.

Yet Hastings still writes the article in this way, and the Mail on Sunday still splashes it all over the front page.

UPDATE: James Delingpole has a comment piece on this in the Mail's RightMinds section. He apparently sees this 'news' as evidence of a:

Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within

He says:

No longer will its website refer to those bigoted, Christian-centric concepts AD (as in Anno Domini – the Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ)...All reference to Christ has been expunged

If only the BBC website didn't prove him wrong.

Wertz

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

They'll be after AC/DC next.

But that's not really a current issue is it...

naldface

Wertz wrote: »

But that's not really a current issue is it...

Yes it is.

Mike 1972

a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within

DAMN who told them ? :pac:

Benny_Cake

Karl Marx.Dead for 128 years and his followers are still trying to bring down society!From WITHIN the BBC!:rolleyes:

Cantona's Collars

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Commonwealth NOT = the United Kingdom

And its hardly pedantic to point out that someone is talking through their vagina (AND continues doing so when called up on it) I guess youre kinda new to this debating lark ?

Next thing youll be telling us the United States is an Island :rolleyes:

Just used the commonwealth phrase to pull your leg,I'm not new to debating fyi.

I did allude to the Daily Mail as the origin of the article and made a comment on it,everything that's in that paper should be taken with a grain of salt but one thing it does is guarantee debate and controversy.Half the stuff in AH seems to originate from the DM.

I don't know how my loose use of geographical terms ended up in a completely separate argument-I didn't want to say 'British Isles' as I know how worked up it gets some people.

If I had a vagina I doubt I'd be on here arguing over geography and political correctness-My hands would be too busy to type;):D:D:D

Mike 1972

zerks wrote: »

I did allude to the Daily Mail as the origin of the article and made a comment on it,everything that's in that paper should be taken with a grain of salt but one thing it does is guarantee debate and controversy.

Especially when one appears to endorse it.

zerks wrote: »

Half the stuff in AH seems to originate from the DM.

So why add to the problem ?

If people want to read the gawdamn Daily Mail they can go to dailymail.co.uk

AudreyHepburn

Personally I'm not to bothered by this, in the sense of it doesn't offend me. The only issue is where does this kind of PC-ness end?

Do we change the names of the days of the week or months of the year? Do we change the calender? Do we stop people using biblical terms in speech, giving their children biblical names? Do rename every street/town etc that has a religious/biblical name?

4leto

Roll with the LOLs so the daily mail has struck again, sometimes I think that paper just has permanent April fools days headlines, well at least once a week they run with them.

Well I fell for this one.

Cantona's Collars

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Especially when one appears to endorse it.



So why add to the problem ?

If people want to read the gawdamn Daily Mail they can go to dailymail.co.uk

Should that be God Damn instead of gawdamn or are you trying not to offend anyone?

It's ott stories inspire debate plus the sensational headlines really bring out the best and worst in people,makes AH a more entertaining place imo.Where better to get sensational headlines than the English rags,it'd be pretty boring if everyone used the Times as a source(way too sensible reporting)

We've gotten a few pages of debate from my op and link,no worse than glancing through a paper over a pint and having a discussion over it's content with others around you.

I've spent years working within rules of health & safety and while many are for the better some are plain bonkers I also regard political correctness the same.

MagicMarker

zerks wrote: »

Try and walk to Europe and you'll soon discover how it's an island you're on;)

Here's a pic to keep you happy.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RdLAd89tRNA/TJEWCORgJII/AAAAAAAABt0/tkgJHwMSTwg/s1600/mapa.jpg

Wow. You do realise Ireland is in Europe?

In that case, Texas is an Island too, they can't walk to Europe either.

Jimoslimos

1) Who uses AD/BC in everyday life and who will use the new terminology?

Probably very few apart from historians

2) What are these historians concerned with mostly?

Usually accurately matching up facts and dates about historical events

3) Does anybody (even devout Christians) believe that Jesus was born on the 25th December in the year 1 AD (or 1AD -6days)?

No!

So historians would like a dating period not linked to the alleged birth of someone, which in all probability never happened at that time anyway - why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over this? Seems perfectly logical to me

Kevin Duffy

zerks wrote: »

Should that be God Damn instead of gawdamn or are you trying not to offend anyone?

It's ott stories inspire debate plus the sensational headlines really bring out the best and worst in people,makes AH a more entertaining place imo.Where better to get sensational headlines than the English rags,it'd be pretty boring if everyone used the Times as a source(way too sensible reporting)

We've gotten a few pages of debate from my op and link,no worse than glancing through a paper over a pint and having a discussion over it's content with others around you.

I've spent years working within rules of health & safety and while many are for the better some are plain bonkers I also regard political correctness the same.

Use of the the term "debate" for the content of this thread is, er, debatable.

Cantona's Collars

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Use of the the term "debate" for the content of this thread is, er, debatable.

I suppose,could be worse,I might have stuck it in the Religion forums but I'm scared of that place.

Seanchai

zerks wrote: »

Try and walk to Europe and you'll soon discover how it's an island you're on;)

Here's a pic to keep you happy.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RdLAd89tRNA/TJEWCORgJII/AAAAAAAABt0/tkgJHwMSTwg/s1600/mapa.jpg

"British Isles" - hahahaha

Yahew

looksee wrote: »

I would have thought there was more issue with 'common era' . Common to whom? Is a person of another, or no, belief being asked to acknowledge that the Christian era is 'common' to everyone?

At least if you are saying 'before Christ' you are making a simple reference to a time period linked to a person you may or may not believe in. AD is a bit more questionable 'In the year of our lord Jesus Christ', which implies worship. AC would be more politically correct.

Good point. If they really wanted to change it to not upset Muslims they would use the Muslim calendar, to not upset the Jews a Jewish calendar, to not upset the Aztecs, an Aztec calendar. To not upset anybody - or rather to upset Westerners - a whole new calendar.

On the day of the moon landings Arthur C Clarke suggested calling that year zero ( or one), as he said that future humans would see that year as the start of real human progress. He was too optimistic on space travel, unfortunately.

Otherwise this is just window dressing. It used to be Christian - before and after Christ - now it is Euro, or Western centric. Before or after the Common Era. Except that era is common to the West, is it not? So not so common. And when does Year one of the Before Common Era end and Year one of the After Common Era start? Just when BC ends and AD starts. Around the time of Christ. The assumed birth of Christ. ( The fact that it is now known to be estimated off by 6 years is not relevant).

Its like changing British Isles to Commonwealth Isles. Ireland is not in the commonwealth, you say? Well, the common era is not common.

Really, little change here. Window dressing. Half arsed PC. Political Correctness gone insipid.

MagicSean

So are we still in the same year or what? Do we get to party like it's 1999 again?

4leto

Year 1 post lunar landing

The conspiracy nut would never recognise that date.

Seanchai

Wertz wrote: »

But that's not really a current issue is it...

naldface wrote: »

Yes it is.

AC/DC ==>> alternating current (AC) direct current (DC) (electricity!)

Ergo, "current issue".


/joke explanation.

Yahew

Seanchai wrote: »

AC/DC ==>> alternating current (AC) direct current (DC) (electricity!)

Ergo, "current issue".


/joke explanation.

I think they both knew that.

KeithAFC

The BBC is anti British traditional values. This comes to no surprise. Have they released a statement on this?

Cantona's Collars

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow. You do realise Ireland is in Europe?

In that case, Texas is an Island too, they can't walk to Europe either.

Too keep you happy I shall rephrase it to Mainland Europe.

Dudess

British traditional values - what might they be? Archaic stuff like the monarchy?

Britain today is a diverse place.

Yahew

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

So are we still in the same year or what? Do we get to party like it's 1999 again?

Yes, lets all stay at home bitching about pub prices, and the cost to get in to the local. £25, a f*ckin' joke. Turn the telly over, that f3cker does my head in.

Yahew

Dudess wrote: »

British traditional values - what might they be? Archaic stuff like the monarchy?

Britain today is a diverse place.

a diverse place with a monarchy. Although nobody can accuse the BBC or being politically correct there.

FTGFOP

Dudess wrote: »

Heard a waiter in a cafe the other day referring to the disabled toilets as the "less-abled toilets" and everyone who heard him laughed and agreed he should lighten up.

zerks wrote: »

That's actually offensive:D "Less-abled"- he needs a kick in the nuts then he'd be less abled for a while.

If you think about it 'handicapped' and even 'less-abled' are less offensive than 'disabled'. To me the disabled implies (complete) brokenness whereas the first two are a more accurate. A person that can't walk has a handicap but they aren't broken or useless.

The real reason (probably) that there are these shifts is due to these terms being used as insults by insensitive people. 'Spastic' was once a proper, non-derogatory term, which was replaced by 'handicapped', which was replaced by 'disabled'.

Cantona's Collars

Yahew wrote: »

I think they both knew that.

No shocks so.....




Gets coat.

Seanchai

KeithAFC wrote: »

The BBC is anti British traditional values.

Ha, and let me guess Keith: your community in the northeast of Ireland embodies "British traditional values"?

That's a classic settler-colonial mentality: move away from the metropolis, and create a defensive entrenched siege mentality culture that makes your culture no longer the same in fundamental respects as that in the metropolis - and then turn around and condemn the metropolis for not having "traditional values".

The Pied Noirs (French settler colonialists) in Algeria felt precisely the same about France, as have all settler-colonial communities about their respective "motherland".

Dudess

Hardcore loyalists can pretend all they like that they're viewed by people in England, Scotland and Wales as British... but they're not, they're viewed by the majority as Irish.