Subject: re: Date?
From: Pasha Paterson (gpaterso@richmond.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2000 - 01:53:36 EST
The whole question is, in a way, moot. If we go strictly by the numbers,
then yes, since the first century AD began in year 1, the following
millennium would not have begun for another thousand years, thus 1001, and
then 2001. The "odometer effect" has certainly convinced the popular media
in the States and elsewhere, giving everyone an excuse to party hearty like
it's no longer 1999. I can foresee an equal degree of reverie when the
media joyfully exlaims "We were wrong, it's really the new millennium in
2001!" and everyone exploits the millennium fever all over again. I mourn
the American mindset's ability to commercialize the calendar. And yet,
life goes on for the Muslims (who began year 1420) and the Jews (who are in
56-something, if I recall correctly) and the Chinese (who've completely
lost track of such irrelevant trivia), or any Roman descendants living in
undiscovered Italian caves (who just celebrated the Saturnalia of 2753).
So the Christian calendar happens to wrap over. Who cares? (grin)
_________________________________________________
Pasha Paterson gpaterso@richmond.edu
Owner/Designer/Operator, The Digital Dustbin:
http://www.student.richmond.edu/~gpaterso/
_________________________________________________
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:30:24 EST