In know this has probably made the rounds before…but I need to know. Are we in a new Century?? ( I know the new Millennium doesn’t start until Jan 01 2001 so we don’t have to go down that road)
There are only two things that are infinite…the Universe and Man’s stupidity…I’m not sure about the Universe though.
Millennium and century follow the same rules. No new century until 2001.
I realize I’m generalizing here, but as in most cases, I don’t care.
-Dave Barry
Well, I guess you could consider the 1900s a legitimate century, which is 99% the same as the 20th Century. So you could say “We’ve left the 1900s” and leave it at that. If you say the century, people are going to think you’re talking about either the 20th or the 21st, and that doesn’t change for another 11 months or so.
Some people treat the 1900s as exactly the same as the 20th Century, which would either mean the 1900s didn’t include 1900, or the 20th Century didn’t include 2000. Which would be weird.
Century, millennium, decade, even the year beginning on January 1 – it’s all arbitrary, far from universal, and subject to frequent revision. Happy whatever you want to celebrate. Me, I’m going for all four.
In this topic, TheDude offered this excerpt from the London Times:
quote:<hr height=“2”>
– The (London) Times, December 26, 1799
<hr height=“2”>
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
The Times has an interesting take on the matter. I wouldn’t have thought that the problem was the unwashed masses mistaking 99 for 100, but rather, mistaking 101 for 100. That is, if you ask the brain-wanting individual what years are included in the 20th Century, they’d say “1900-2000”. 101 years. Since the 21st Century includes the years 2000-2100, the two Centuries must fight over the year 2000, and naturally the younger more vigorous Century emerges victorious.
No, it doesn’t make sense, but I think it’s really an arithmetic problem. Folks don’t realize that the 2000th year hasn’t happened until the end of the 2000th year; they make a false comparison to ages. That’s all.
If I’m 20 years old, can I buy a beer if I truthfully declare that “I am now in my 21st year”?
Why must I feel like that/Why must I chase the cat?/Nothin’ but the dog in me.–George Clinton
*Doghouse Reilly: If I’m 20 years old, can I buy a beer if I truthfully declare that “I am now in my 21st year”? *
Sorry. You’re 21[sup]st[/sup] year is an ordinal count. What the liquor store wants is a cardinal value of the amount of time you’ve spent ex utero.
More unfair things: someone born between March 1 of a leap year and February 28 of a leap year plus 3 (e.g., 3/1/1964-2/28/1967) has one less day to wait before turning 21 than the others (3/1/67 - 2/29/68).
Even more unfair: someone born 3/1/96-2/28/99 of any century (except the 16th, 20th, 24th, etc.) has two less days to wait.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm - Rush
Oops, a little mistake in my last post.
Those born 3/1/80-2/28/83, 3/1/84-2/28/87, 3/1/88-2/28/91, 3/1/92-2/28/95, 3/1/96-2/28/99 in all centuries but the 16th, 20th, 24, etc., will have two less days to wait.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm - Rush
Interesting fact: The Blade (Toledo’s newspaper) published a reprint of its 1/1/1900 front page on 1/1/2000. There was nary a WORD about the ‘new century’ on that page. The reason was simple: as The Blade noted on 1/1/1901, the new century didn’t begin until then.
Amazing how, in the space of 99 years, we have been so dumbed down that, with the exception of a few intelligent people, the country accepts a patently incorrect notion as true, without any real debate on the subject.
There is nothing “correct” or “incorrect” about it. The measurement of time is a social construction. There is nothing “true” or “scientific” about starting the day at midnight, the year on January 1, or the decade/century/millennium in 2000, or 2001, or 2163. (Personally, I consider the millennium to have begun April 14, 1960, but that’s only because I have an ego as big as all outdoors.)
All of these are merely cultural conventions. And our culture has decided to chuck ordinal numbers in favor of cardinal ones. Nothing “stupid” about it. Seems quite sensible to me, since cardinal are more familiar and easier to deal with, and, as previously stated, it don’t make too much difference anyway.
And within the terms of the social construction we have adopted for the reckoning of time, it is incorrect to state that the 20th century and 2nd millennium have ended. According to our own rules, they have not.
I wish I was a gas station owner in your area. I’d make sure to start counting your gallons at 23, and charge you accordingly.
We are familiar with both, and deal with both on a daily basis.
There is no particular reason that any particular thousand years cannot be called a ‘millennium.’
There IS a very GOOD reason that the thousand years beginning 1/1/2000 cannot properly be called the ‘Third Millennium.’
Ditto the idea that the 21st Century has already begun.
<eyeroll>
Everyone overlooks the known errors in the Gregorian calendar. Since it’s supposed to be based from the birth of Jesus Christ the third millennium started about three years ago.
“Popeye? Hm? He’s not much of a judge of women!” King Blozo
Pardon me, the Gregorian calendar is based on the circumcision of Jesus, not his birth.
Labradorian –
I disagree. Our social constructions have changed. We’ve changed when we recognize the beginning of the year (Jan. 1, March 25, etc.). We’ve changed when we recognize the beginning of the seasons (a change that bugs me, but whatchagonnado). We’ve changed how we define decades and centuries (the Sixties; the 1900s). And now, by popular acclaim, we have changed how we reckon millennia. Or, more accurately, the issue hadn’t come up before in our lifetimes, and the culture has adopted the same system of counting as we use for our birthdays.
As for cardinal vs. ordinal, again I disagree, but I recognize I was not clear. In terms of reckoning years (as in ages, birthdays, anniversaries, etc.) we always use cardinal numbers. The notion that the year numbers themselves would be cardinal is inconsistent, confusing, and thus rightly rejected.
And I don’t own a car, so I will be unable to purchase any gasoline from you today. 
In closing, I would like to offer my early candidate for quote of the new millennium, printed this week in the Chicago Reader:
“Next New Year’s Eve will be truly historic, as it will launch the first global celebration that’s of and for the world’s anal retentives of every race, creed, and color. In the meantime we should respect their feelings. When they insist the 20th century isn’t over yet, let’s go on pretending the reason we disagree is that we just don’t get the math.”
Couldn’ta said it better myself! Peace and love in the 40th year of our Beruang.
Yip. We explicitly changed that rule. When did the century rule change?
When did we go and do that?
The Sixties and 1900s are popular names for certain spans of time. The are also decades and centuries, in the same way that the 10 years from 1986 to 1995 was a “decade”. But that doesn’t mean that the reckoning of decades and centuries and millenia from our putative Year One has changed. It hasn’t.
No, we’ve just changed what we want to celebrate in the face of bandwagonism and math illiteracy.
The culture has done no such a thing.
Sometime in the Seventies. Cecil’s written about it. Many calendars now indicate the solstice / equinox as the beginning of a season; it’s been ages since I’ve seen one that indicates the first of the month.
Given the putative nature of Year One, the lack of living witnesses, and the miniscule effect it has on modern life, I (and virtually everyone else) fail to see why we should mark its decades, centuries and millennia instead of others that strike us as more meaningful.
Mine has. Every newspaper, broadcaster, politician, casual conversation, etc. Culture is people, and the people have spoken. As you so rightly say, any thousand-year period is “a” millennium, but we use “THE millennium” to refer to the period that ended 12/31/1999.
Peace, love, and an end to inter-league scheduling.
– Beruang
Beruang:
“Next New Year’s Eve will be truly historic, as it will launch the first global celebration that’s of and for the world’s anal retentives of every race, creed, and color. In the meantime we should respect their feelings. When they insist the 20th century isn’t over yet, let’s go on pretending the reason we disagree is that we just don’t get the math.”
No need to pretend that you don’t get the math. You simply don’t.
Every newspaper, broadcaster, politician, casual conversation, etc. Culture is people, and the people have spoken. As you so rightly say, any thousand-year period is “a” millennium, but we use “THE millennium” to refer to the period that ended 12/31/1999.
Actually, during the NYE celebrations, one of the network news anchors explained that it wasn’t really the 21st Century/ 3rd Millennium AD. They were only calling it that because “everybody” was.
Well, I’m part of everybody, and I say “no”.
Abraham Lincoln onces asked if a dog’s tail was called a leg, how many legs would it have. Answer: 4; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. So, calling the 2nd Millennium 1000 AD-1999 AD just doesn’t make it so.
A millennium did end, and one of note. The 1000’s.
Let the Truth of Love be lighted/ Let the Love of Truth shine clear. Sensibility/ Armed with sense and liberty
With the Heart and Mind united in a single/ Perfect/ Sphere. - Rush
Oh, but I do get the math. I just don’t find it all that compelling or important.
On the other hand, your last line is one of the most intelligent things said on the subject so far.