I’m new here, so I don’t know if this has been addressed before, but am I the only one who is unwilling to buy the argument that the new millenium begins in 2001? How ridiculous is it to watch those (arbitrarily assigned in the first place) numbers roll around to zeroes with a nice, shiny new 2 at the front and say, “Wait! Hold the celebration. You guys are a year early!” as so many pretentious types have been known to do?
My limited research has still turned up no better explanation than the fact that the Gregorian calendar by which we measure the years had no year 0. Thus, the first century lasted until the end of the year 100, etc. That’s it?! C’mon, humans, the Gregorian calendar was instituted in 1582 and had nothing to do with the year 1. Furthermore, it is a calendar based historically on the birthdate of Jesus, which is now known to be some three years off. So, having no cosmic imperative to delineate the passage of time, we arbitrarily assigned a beginning to a moment more than 1,500 revolutions-of-the-earth-around-the-sun ago, and we were even wrong in our assumptions about that beginning! And yet world almanacs and other such authorities insist on keeping consistent with this clerical error of papal mathematicians hundreds of years ago. Where is the logic in that?
The only reason this fallacy hasn’t been corrected is that time is not a science. We can’t prove that the millenium should begin anywhere, so we go by the conventions. But this is stupid, and it should end. Let’s use logic. When 1999 ended and 2000 began, that was the beginning of a “new millenium”. The computers knew it, why don’t we? I ask that the people who officiate this sort of trivia correct the error so that I don’t have to listen to a bunch of schmucks who took the time to learn a single “fact” act superior for celebrating the millenium at the “right time”.
You’re right about the inaccurate calendar. Christ was born in 4 BC. It’s already 2004. Your party was 4 years late. 
Oh god, and we thought the thread about the whole nine yards would never die…
Sugarbuns, this has been thrashed out here quite regularly. I recommend using the search function to see old threads on the issue.
But, to paraphrase the results:
-
The reason that the ‘new millenium’ starts 1/1/2001 is that the ‘millenium’ in question is properly titled ‘the third millenium after the birth of Christ’. Ignoring for a moment the unfortunate fact that the year 1 A.D. was misplaced (apparently), the point is that until you have completed 2000 full years, you can’t be starting into the third millenium since 0 (represented in admittedly arbitrary fashion by the moment just before 1/1/0001 A.D. It isn’t some stupid silly rule that people are following; it’s being logical, something that admittedly escapes most people most of the time.
-
Regardless of whether we have actually entered the ‘third millenium’ or not, most people currently THINK in terms of the grouping of ordinal numerals which share a common trait. Thus, for instance, we think of the ‘nineties’ to have run from 1/1/90 to 12/31/99, despite the technical fact that the ‘ninth decade of the twentieth century’ was really from 1/1/81 to 12/31/90, or the fact that the tenth such decade runs from 1/1/91 to 12/31/00. So even if the millenium didn’t start yet, a millenium did start, and for many people, if not most, the date 1/1/2000 did start the ‘two-thousands’.
Go search out the longer answers, and have fun… 
All right, I’m satisfied, DS. My original search of this site didn’t turn up a thread on the subject, and I just needed to get that off my chest. There’s nothing worse than thinking you’re the only one that thinks something. Or is it nothing better?
The turn of the millenium was December 31st, 1999-January 1st, 2000. Why? Because thats when the parties were! Damn! You can be all smug and let us know that the real millenium starts in 2001. You can have a 2001 Millenium Party to further reinforce your statement. Nobody cares. I’m tired of this being an issue; technically, yes, if you want to quibble about it, 2001 is the first year of the new millenium because there was no year 0, according to how we designate our calendar. Now, this issue is declared closed by me.
NO MORE POSTINGS AFTER THIS ONE! CLOSED, I TELL YOU! THIS BETTER REMAIN THE LAST POST IN THIS THREAD! 
ya! no more posts!
Ah, yes, another example of someone who obviously is interested in fighting ignorance. ::rolleyes::
Man you 2000-is-the-millennium people are so limited. We 2001-er’s were able to have an end-of-1900’s New Year’s Party on December 31, 1999/January 1, 2000 and we get to have a New Millennium New Year’s Party on December 31, 2000/January 1, 2001. So, we get two ultra-New Year’s parties and you only get one.
[sub]btw, who’s job was it to come up with an excuse for an extra-festive party for the 2001 to 2002 changeover? I haven’t gotten any updates on that.[/sub]
Yeah, I wasn’t impressed at all with the 12/31/99 festivities, I’ve had better. I’m hoping the REAL millenium parties will be better.
(set at the end of December, 2000)
Henry Janeway: Speaking of the modern age… do you have any plans for the Millennium Eve?
Shannon O’Donnell: No different than last year’s Millennium Eve: I plan to be asleep.
Henry Janeway: Life of the party.
Shannon O’Donnell: Oh, don’t tell me you’ve bought into all that hypergas.
Henry Janeway: Mm, maybe just a little.
Shannon O’Donnell: Last year, when 2000 arrived, everyone was convinced it was the dawn of a new era. But when the world didn’t end, and the flying saucers didn’t land, and the Y2K bug didn’t turn on a single light bulb, you’d think everybody would’ve realized it was a number on the calendar. But oh no, they had to listen to all those hucksters who told them the REAL millennium was 2001. So this New Year’s Eve will be as boring as last year’s.
Oops, my topic got cut off that last post. The quotes are from “Star Trek: Voyager”, episode “11:59”.
I’ve only ever heard one rational suggestion on this topic: Owing to uncertainties in the exact date and time of Christ’s birth, and disagreements as to which anniversery of that event is the most significant, the only logical action is to party continuously from 1993 to 2005. Have fun.
It still grates on my nerves to hear all sorts of events this year labelled the first “fill-in-the-blank” of the 21st century. Especially when supposedly respectable news organizations make this mistake.
I mean, I can almost accept 2000 being the first year of the millenium or century when its kept generic, but the label “21st century” mustn’t be used until next year.
One only has to look at the early news clippings of 1899/1900/1901 to see that the 20th century was acknowledged as having started on January 1st, 1901. So 2001 must be the beginning of the 21st century, if for no other reason than to allow that 100 year period to progress. Otherwise the 20th century had only 99 years!
One advantage the 2001 contigent has over those who chose to celebrate 2000 as the start, is that we are comparatively saving a ton of money for end-of-the-year trips/hotel rooms.
Arthur C. Clarke intentionally set 2001: A Space Odyssey in the year 2001, because it was the actual start of the new millenium.
Finally, I plan to party hard for next year as well. After all, 2002 is a palindrome, and has a real cool look for a year in any event. Seeing as the next palindomic year isn’t until 2112, I figure we better enjoy this one.