While scientists and religious teachers battle it out over the Science vs. Religion argument, historians are in the middle of a debate quite similar: categorizing time according to the traditional B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini--"In the Time Of Our Lord") or using modern B.C.E (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) I have listed the pros and cons of each way below:


Traditional Way


Pros:

*Used by most historians
*A large percentage of the world is Christian


Cons:

* May be offensive to some people


Modern Way


Pros:

*Less offensive to people of another religion
*Easier to remember


Cons:


*Not used by most historians



My Opinion



When it comes to this argument, I have a strictly established opinion: use B.C./A.D. There is absolutely no point in just changing the name of the different time periods while still reckoning with Christ's birth. And you're telling the truth, not twisting it!



If I was dictator and could establish my own rules, though, my time periods would be very simple: A.E. (Ancient Era) and M.E. (Modern Era) They would not categorize time according to Christ's birth, but according to what has happened in history. My turning point would be 476 A.D., (according to the traditional way) the year that Rome was burned by Germanic invaders. This year is considered to be the end of the Roman Empire by most historians, as well as the end of ancient times.



Of course, such a drastic change would send Americans into a pool of confusion; all regular dates as we know them would be changed. 2008 would be (saying 476 A.D. is 1 A.E. and 477 A.D. is 1 M.E.) 1531 M.E., I would graduate from high school in 1545!



I would love feedback on this post, send me your opinion at jeberexa@gmail or post a comment on my blog, http://www.buddinghistorian.blogspot.com/.