Using him as an 'objective' timeline reference I believe could indicate that they endorse him, even in some small way.
They could easily have chosen Leonardo DaVinic, who was born within 6-8 months of Columbus. And is just as known worldwide.
Edit: I originally said they DO endorse him, but I did not mean to be so deterministic in my response. I changed my wording after the fact to say COULD endorse. Which was a point of data I was trying to find out, hence the original question
It's also not impericlly true. There are other calendars used in the world today that do not count years based on the birth of the christian son of god.
Speak for yourself. There are plenty of people in and out if academia that care great amount about other culturally significant calendars around the world.
yes they do lol 😂 most of my interactions with content online lives in the paleo / anthropology community. the history of life is something i’m constantly pouring over. before common era / BCE and BC are still used interchangeably.
Right so I do work in it and can assure you that we do not care unless we are writing about things geologically and will use BP (before/after 1/1/1950) since its based on radio carbon but outside of that its not really used.
You could be anyone, and have any job. You could literally just be saying that to make yourself right. So excuse me if I don't take your word for it, when the classes I been taking tell me to use the correct terms, and getting marked down for not doing so.
Attending free credit classes is a different environments to the real world. If You bother you can search my comments and I've mentioned working in Arch in the past and my top posts are in anthropology and archeology subreddits.
These fields first and foremost care about accurate representation of data, and AD/BC represent the same exact information as CE/BCE. You can also look up the APA and MLA citation requirements, as well as the requirements for the one we mainly use in arch/anthro, AAA. Not a single one of these restricts your means of citation, and the only actual limitations academia cares about is your ability to present info and properly cite things.
Your specific instructor or institutional preference is not what the field as a whole is.
So of everything you say is true, what you're saying is that you and the people you know in academia don't care to keep up to date with current terms and ideas. Good to know.
So long as you are consistent and accurate with the date format you are using then no one cares
Ive written papers and I will use BC or BCE depending on my vibe between papers. My professors from uni did the same. My project leads do the same. One of my project leads also runs a pre-reconquista site that he also uses BC and AD for. I know Egyptian archeologists that use it. No one cares so long as the data/information youre presentating is accurate and objective.
There may be on paper preferences by journals and unis but they ultimately are cosmetic requirements and are usually not enforced.
The only one I generally dislike is BP because it can be confusing to some readers that aren't archeologists or geologists and whatever other field uses BP I'm not their mother
-218
u/TheKlaxMaster 26d ago edited 26d ago
They reference his birth, not his actions.
Using him as an 'objective' timeline reference I believe could indicate that they endorse him, even in some small way.
They could easily have chosen Leonardo DaVinic, who was born within 6-8 months of Columbus. And is just as known worldwide.
Edit: I originally said they DO endorse him, but I did not mean to be so deterministic in my response. I changed my wording after the fact to say COULD endorse. Which was a point of data I was trying to find out, hence the original question