Theos-Talk Archives (March 1996 Message tl00013)

At 12:25 AM 3/6/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In message <313C8B52@mortar.bpa.gov>, "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ"
><nlporreco@bpa.gov> writes
>
>>>>snip<<<
>
>>>>>>snipity snip<<<<<


>
>B.C. and A.D. have long since been *replaced* in academic circles by
>C.E. (common era) and B.C.E. (before common era).  This is because the
>older terms were found *not* to be innocuous, not least to the the
>Jewish population.

Alexis writes: Alan, that's true, I don't think any reputable historian (at
least no one I've read recently, and that's a lot), and few authors today
use the old terms. It doesn't only insult the Jewish Population but that
entire majority of human kind who aren't Christian. "B.C." and "A.D." are
hardly innocuous.
>
>Also, circumlocutions around the outdated terminology are fairly simple,
>and newer writers will begin to discover that what began as a
>circumlocution becomes the norm.  For example, I set out to revise my
>own "Keys to Kabbalah" in such a way as to use inclusive language
>throughout the entire text.  It wasn't hard, and there is no suggestion
>of sexism left in it to the best of my knowledge.  And I did not need to
>resort to explanations about sanskrit "manus" or any other language - I
>just rearranged the existing English!

Alexis writes:

I try very hard to do the same thing in my own writing and I too have
discovered it's really quite easy and doesn't need to result in linguistic
barbarisms. The thing to do is be a careful language user and not
politically correct. It's all too easy to say "that's how it is, we'll have
to put up with it", but basically I question the motivations of those who
won't even attempt to clean up their linguistic act. I am male so it's no
skin off my nose, but I care tremendously about those who find it hurtful.

>(Nick's original post appeared on theos-roots)
>
>Alan, contra sexism.
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>
alexis dolgorukii, contra "isms" in general
member T.I.>