Our History discussion
What field of history interests you?
Upon reflection I realized that I began using the term BCE while working on SAPPHO SINGS as the story takes place in the 7th century before both the common and the Christian eras {}:>)My next one will be pre-Abrahamic,or nearly. Nobody seems sure as to exactly when Sarai kicked Hagar and her son out of the tent and thus began the perpetual sibling rivalry we're contending with to this day.
Thanks Bruce for informationglad I am now at least up to the 18th Century state of knowledge and custom - only 3 more centuries to get caught up with modern times
Jim wrote: "Thanks Bruce for informationglad I am now at least up to the 18th Century state of knowledge and custom - only 3 more centuries to get caught up with modern times"
Yeah, well, I'm not sure that modern times are such a great improvement over the 18th cnetury
My understanding is that the term BCE is more politically correct than saying BC "Before Christ"Subsequently "CE" (Common Era)is used instead of "AD" (Anno Domine=Year of our Lord)
Ive heard other people say the terms are ridiculous, since they mean the same thing as BC and AD and are based on the western calendar measuring the years since Christ's life.
Perhaps it's a polite way to acknowledge the simple fact that the world was already old long before the Nazarine was born. Why antagonize non-Christians unnecessarily?
I am mainly interested in pre-columbian and ancient civilizations as well as in explorers like Cook, Darwin, Humbolt, Magellan, Nansen and several more. But I also like to read about US-american history.
Hello, I'm Bethany and new to this group. I was wondering- does anyone have any recommendations on books about Boudiccea. I have read Manda Scotts series and love them, and recently I was reading a paranormal book and it mentioned Boudiccea a lot and I realised how interested I was in her. I think the time period is astounding and I am always amazed at the roles of men and women in society and their beliefs at the time.I would also like to start reading more books about history, ancient history in particular if anyone has any recommenations?
Thanks
Boudica Iron Age Warrior Queen was well-reviewed. It has both a scholarly take on the Queen and then a second section about how she's been represented in popular history of the years. I haven't read it myself, but it sounds good.
Boudiccea must have been one powerful woman. I present the evolution of her name through the ages as proof.Over time, the word Boudiccea became bull-dagger then bull dyke then just dyke.
Interesting that throughout history, which is indeed "his" story, any woman of power simply "had" to have been if not a man-hater at least a lover of women and therefore to be disregarded by "his" storians. Just stands to reason in the Goddess fearing male mind.
Thanks for your suggestion, James, I'll check it out. The name evolution sounds interesting, I definitely have to read up about her.
I too find Boudicca fascinating and have read a number of historical fictions and history clips about her as well a primary sources. She is a British icon much like Vercingetorix is a French icon. There is much written about her, most naturally speculative. I would like to see as much about Caratacus. There is as more known about him than Boudicca, but much less in the way of historical/speculative fiction. And one could argue that he is an historically more important figure, as the 'father' of Cymru.
I agree, I have not seen many that I recall, solely about Caratacus in the same scale as Boudicca. I am only relying on a very poorly stocked library at the moment and it doesn't have anything historical in further back than WW1, which is very annoying.
There we go. Right back to the men again. How boring. How annoying.The dirth of documentation about our forebearers is what got me interested in Sappho. It seemed like everybody knew her name but nobody knew anything about her.
When I could find almost nothing about her in the entire Los Angelos library system librarian said, "If you can't find the book you'd like to read, perhaps you should write it." Thus SAPPHO SINGS ISBN: 1438214316
I'm new here, so hi to everyone.I mainly like to read about the Tudors, the Salem Witch Trials, the American and French Revolutions, and the American Civil War. Every now and then I get interested in WWII, but it's not as big an interest of mine. Within all that I mainly read biographies though I'll read pretty much anything; I just like reading about actual people and what they did and that sort of stuff.
A family friend is named after Boudicca. She spells it Bouadicea though, I think.
In some cases, as with Boudicca and Sappho among others there are not enough facts available for us to write non-fiction books about them. As mentioned above, women did not fare well in the men's books.Nevertheless, as also mentioned above there are some fine "fill-in-the-blanks" fictional accounts of Bouadicea and I'd like to offer my own "Sappho Sings" as a fictionalized biography of Sappho of Lesbos.
As for American Civil War history, again the women did not fare will and most of their stories are lost to us. However, my novel "Fixin' Things" is based on diaries and journals of women at Gettysburg before, during and after the great battle there in 1863. My characters are composites of real Gettysburg women then and now.
The first chapters of both books are posted on my website . Check them out sometime. They might surprise you.
Kernos wrote: "I too find Boudicca fascinating and have read a number of historical fictions and history clips about her as well a primary sources. She is a British icon much like Vercingetorix is a French icon. ..."Difference being Vercingetorix did not murder 80,000 fellow Gauls during his wars against Rome. He sought to unite the tribes of Gaul rather than kill those who dissented. Had he employed the same "scorched earth" strategy as Boudicca, Alesia would have fallen much easier to Caesar.
The issue I have with Boudicca has nothing to do with her gender; indeed some of history's greatest rulers, such as Elizabeth I, were women. Rather, I find it odd that she is made out to be some sort of icon when in fact most of the people she killed during her rampage of murder were not Romans at all, but were fellow Britons. Yes, I know this term is a bit ambiguous, because there was no united Britain during this time period. Regardless, the merciless killing of 80,000 fellow natives of Britania does not make a hero or heroine in my book. Since the Iceni were at war with Rome, I can understand attacking the Roman legionary and auxiliary outposts, and I can even understand destroying the veteran settlements at Colchester. However, the destruction of Londinium and the killing of its entire populace (about 30,000 people), to include men, women, and children, is abhorrent.
To her credit militarily, she did defeat elements of Legio IX Hispania (it was about three Cohorts, NOT the entire Legion as some would like to believe). However, let us not forget that at the Battle of Watling Street her entire army was routed by the Roman army under Paulinus, whose total force was about 1/10th the size of hers.
Sadly I have not seen any novels written from the Iceni perspective that weren't little more than attempts at propoganda with a 21st century moral spin. However, If you're looking for a great novel about this time period, I highly recommend George Shipway's "Imperial Governor." It is written as if it were the autobiography of the Roman Governor, Paulinus. Normally I do not like books written in the "first person;" however, this is by far one of the best I have ever read. Shipway is very underrated and sadly never got the same recognition as Robert Graves did with "I, Claudius." Granted, Boudicca herself only has a small cameo in Imperial Governor. Though as it is written in the first person, realistically Paulinus never would have met her. However, it does go into depth about another (and in my opinion more fascinating) woman, Queen Cartimandua. Granted, since Cartimandua was a Roman ally from the time of the invasion in 43 A.D., she is not given nearly the same status as Boudicca.
Kernos wrote: "I much prefer the men in all ways ;-)"You've really got to read http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77...
I pretty much like anything from the Victorian period, all the way back to the beginning of man. I like most history that comes prior to technology, or at least modern technology. So anything 1800's and earlier is my main interest. Though there are some aspects of the early 1900's that is interesting to me. I so enjoy 20th century lit. But I most particularly like ancient cultures, the middle ages, Renascence. I am pretty much an all around history buff. I pretty much like it all.
Recently I've become more and more interested in late 19th - early 20th century history.I'm like Silver though, and pretty much like it all. :)
Boudicca"She was huge of frame, terrifying of aspect, and with a harsh voice. A great mass of bright red hair fell to her knees: She wore a great twisted golden necklace, and a tunic of many colors, over which was a thick mantle, fastened by a brooch. Now she grasped a spear, to strike fear into all who watched her...…"
-Dio Cassius (Dudley and Webster, 54)
Boudicca beneath the Roman lies --->
The story of Boudicca, celebrated Celtic queen, wife, and mother is destined to remain in the gray shadows of history.
More -->
http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/b...
my history interests are in specific areas for now:18th & 19th century history (primarily British, American, Canadian but maybe i will expand that later)
Vikings, Picts, Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, Saxon, Norman, pagan Slavs
I would like to eventually research and get into :
Eygptian, Philistine, Sumerian, also medieval europe interests me
I am looking for books on the subjects of Ancient Eygpt. Are there any good book suggestions? I am also searching for a book that contains more then a small reference to the Philistine / Cannaanite god Dagon. Or rather a book on these cultures and history. Any ideas?
Scott wrote: "my history interests are in specific areas for now:18th & 19th century history (primarily British, American, Canadian but maybe i will expand that later)
Vikings, Picts, Vandals, Goths, Visi..."
This is a work of fiction that includes an in depth bibliography:
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Soul-Sun-...
I have a special interest in Canadian history. I also read some European history of the major western powers, including Russia. American history also interests me but more in how it relates to Canada. I also enjoy books such as " A History of God" and "A History of Reading". I enjoy biography of politicians because it give me an ideas of what historical subjects I would like to learn more about. I find historical fiction also can bring new subjects to my attention.
Paul- that is very specific focus. What draws you to the First World War?For myself, I really enjoy any history in which people find themselves on the outer edge of human experience. That could take many forms, and include those engaged in exploration of the physical world, or in scientific innovation, in inner, personal spiritual discovery, or simply those who find themselves, as the Chinese saying goes, unfortunate enough to live through “interesting times”, and how they adapt to that. The First World War would certainly fit within the latter.
My current interest is in one question: How Did Hitler wipe out a democracy and seize absolute power in just three months.www.joanfrancis.net
It took a lot of preliminary skulduggery.
Joan wrote: "My current interest is in one question: How Did Hitler wipe out a democracy and seize absolute power in just three months.www.joanfrancis.net"
My question is how does any one person get a country to go to/make war, ie, why does the group/society decide and follow through on that decision where the group/country isn't attacked first?
any books on how/why a group/country goes to war when not attacked?
Joan wrote: "My current interest is in one question: How Did Hitler wipe out a democracy and seize absolute power in just three months.www.joanfrancis.net"
When people feel traumatised, they tend to be willing to accept extreme measures that promise to lead them to a more secure future. The more extreme the trauma, the more outrageous the solutions contemplated. Germany certainly underwent trauma in the period just before Hitler. Four years of slaughter in the trenches, revolution, followed by years of hyperinflation and general economic turmoil. Even if the promises are false, it is likely that people will accept them if desperate enough. The Chinese have a saying: “ a drowning man with grasp for straw”. In Germany’s case, this situation unfortunately combined with a tradition of militarism, ie: follow orders, don’t ask questions.
This is, of course, no excuse for all that followed. But I also think that Germany is not unique. Given the right circumstances, similar things could occur elsewhere. We have already had a small taste of it in this part of the world. After the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act infringed on a number of civil liberties, but it was accepted because of the threat perceived. Extremists in Quebec kidnapped two people to enforce their threats in 1970, eventually killing one of them. In response, the PM of the time suspended a number of basic rights, arrested hundreds of suspects, and sent the army on to the streets of Montreal and Ottawa. In opinion polling soon afterwards, he received an overwhelming level of support for his actions. Horrible as they were, human societies have had to endure far worse than these events, and if they do again, I wouldn’t be surprised to see extremists given center stage, IMO.
I must tell you that the people of Germany DID NOT put Hitler in power. That is a misconception you must get past if you are to understand the truth. During the 1920s the Nazis (real name National Socialist German Workers Party NSDAP) were a fringe party. They were lucky to get between 2 and 5 percent of the vote. The highest percentage they every received in a free election was in 1931, in the depth of the depression, when Hitler’s anti-communist rhetoric resonated with their fear. By November of 1932 the Nazi vote had dropped to 33 percent and the Nazis were believed to be on the way out. THE GERMAN PEOPLE REJECTED HITLER BY 66 PERCENT. Unfortunately that was the last free election in pre-war Germany. What happened between November 1932 and April 1933 that made Hitler an absolute dictator is most definitely a cautionary tale for all free republics. See my web site for answer to this question. www.joanfrancis.net
Joan wrote: "I must tell you that the people of Germany DID NOT put Hitler in power. That is a misconception you must get past if you are to understand the truth. During the 1920s the Nazis (real name National ..."still doesn't answer my question of why a country/group/society go to war
Hitler couldn't become a dictator by his actions alone
also the German people had to do something for its war effort to be such a threat plus for such atrocities to be committed without their knowledge/apathy/cooperation
"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington
To Peggy: Yours is not quite the correct quote. but close. You will find the full poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller in my book, Silent Coup on page 186.To Jim: No I did not answer your question re war because it is out of context to this discussion. This is on one question: How did Hitler seize power? And Jim: No, Hitler did not become a dictator by his actions alone. Who helped him and why is the key point of this discussion. There are three important things you need to know about his campaign for power. Here is the first one: After he tried seizing power by military coup in the “Beer Hall Putsch” in Munich in 1923 he had a year in prison to contemplate his mistakes. He realized two important things: 1) No revolutionary movement can hope to succeed unless it first makes alliance with the institutions of power. Those institutions included the Church, the Military, Industrialists, the Financiers and bankers, the Right-wing Politicians, and Aristocracy. 2) These institutions would never make an alliance with a socialist party. It would be against their own interests. That is why his first act out of prison was to quietly change the philosophy of the National Socialist from Socialism to Fascism. Hitler spent the years from 1924-1932 speaking anywhere and everywhere, working on those alliances. It was those alliances with power that eventually put him in power, not his influence on the people. For details see my blurb on my website www.joanfrancis.net.
I think that Jim and Peggy’s posts tie in with the question quite nicely.Certainly, the Nazis did not enjoy democratic support in Germany. But winning or losing an election is, to my mind, insufficient in explaining a given population’s behaviour; especially it’s behaviour in extreme circumstances. Ultimately, society depends on people honouring a social contract. If they stop doing what they are supposed to, things can unravel fast. You only deposit your money in a bank because you are pretty well certain it’s not just going into the pocket of the teller. In some countries, this is not so certain, and consequently much investment doesn’t happen.
In Germany the social contract was honoured, despite many, many individuals being directed to commit serious crimes. If you accept the idea that the vast majority of any given population are not particularly violent, then it must take some convincing motivation to get them to behave so. If things get bad enough, people will balk. After four years of carnage in WW1, for example, there were significant rebellions in Russia, Germany, and France.
When under attack, it is human nature to circle the wagons, and fall in behind a strong leader. The seriousness of this attack depends more on perception than actuality. After 9/11, support for some sort of counterattack was very strong in the US, and indeed in much of the world. Many felt very threatened by a nebulous enemy, and strong countermeasures were easier to present. How many felt any qualms about the cruise missiles slamming into Afghanistan after the events in New York? My point here is not to judge these individual events right or wrong, but to try and understand the psychology behind them. Hitler capitalized on Germans fears, insecurities, and prejudices.
A cycle of violence can get started that is then difficult to stop. Many groups have fallen victim to this, and continue to today, Israel/Palestine for example. Germany fell into a cycle of violence, starting in WW1, and not ending until 1945. The longer these go on, the more entrenched they can become.
.Once in power, it can be difficult to remove autocrats. For one thing, they control spin, and propaganda can be a powerful influence. For example, many in the US today still believe there was a connection between 9/11 and Sadam Hussein’s Iraq. Not true, but it was put out there in a skilful fashion by the Bush administration, and they were quite successful with it. Get a population fearful about their basic security needs, Jim, and then pump them full of the kind of information that will psych them up for conflict, and you are a long way to understanding how a few individuals can hijack a whole country for their own purposes.
And Peggy, I think you alluded to other major factors that allow dictators to hold sway. There is a feeling of helplessness among individuals in these circumstances, and with a certain amount of justification. One person can do little in the face of violent repression. Your quote represents the fear, sense of ineffectiveness, and the diminished sense of responsibility that comes from being just one of millions. Strength comes in numbers: one individual may just take a bullet, but 100,000 in the streets will have some impact. The difficulty is in bottom up organizing. Very tough getting thousands one the same wavelength when you are just one in a crowd; much easier to send an order down the chain of command from the top.
So yes, Hitler and his circle of nutters muscled their way into power. Many who may have had some tentive support for him probably soon wavered when they saw his full agenda. Those that did support him at least initially, I would argue, were driven to some extent by the fear, insecurity, and xenophobia of the times. He identified scapegoats (Jews), and maintained a siege mentality by being in constant conflict with other countries. He skilfully controlled information. Eventually, all were caught up in cycles of violence.
Hitler started with society's "expendables." First were the street people, then the mentally ill. With runaway inflation making it cheaper to heat with marks than wood or coal, citing cost effectiveness it was relatively easy to simply do away with Asylums and their inmates. Then came the indigent elderly by the same criteria. Then the Gypsies [nobody trusted them:], homosexuals [nobody liked them:], then the Jews [ they were controlling wealth and keeping it from the regular populous:]The ease with which the German people were inured to murder is both heartbreaking and frightening. The aftermath of 9/11 is a good example of how simple it is for ruthless and/or merciless leaders to make the loss of basic freedoms seem ordinary. As with the past few years in America, not all of the people are fooled by the propaganda but most are powerless to openly combat it.
To Peggy:As to Hitler’s “expendables” could we please leave that part of the discussion to after he seizes power. That belongs to what he did with the power, not how he got it.
As to your comments about how easy it was to destroy freedoms after 9/11—you are right on point. The comparisons between Hitler’s Emergency Decree and Bush’s Patriot Act are obvious. The question is: What could Germans who loved their democracy do in 1933? and What could American’s who loved their democracy do in 2001?
Geoff said: “Certainly, the Nazis did not enjoy democratic support in Germany. But . . .” Let’s start there and see what happened:As written above the first thing to realize is that Hitler’s power came not from the people but from his alliance with the institutions of power: The Church, the Military, Industrialists, the Financiers and bankers, the Right-wing Politicians, and Aristocracy. They brought him to power and supported him.
The second most important thing is how he used that power to destroy democracy after he became Chancellor. Hitler’s propaganda minister, Paul Joseph Goebbels explains:
“We come to the Reichstag (parliament) not as friends, not as neutrals, but as enemies. The National Socialists plan to use this arsenal of democracy to bring it down . . . we are committed to the legality of means, not of ends.”
HITLER USED DEMOCRACY TO BRING DEMOCRACY DOWN. Here is how: He had only been chancellor five hours when he held his first cabinet meeting and demanded new elections. The Reason? Even with the alliance with the right wing, the Nazis did not have a 2/3s majority in Parliament. Now if he lost the last election why would he think he could win a new one? Because as Chancellor he had all the apparatus of the government, plus control over radio and newspapers, more money from big business than he could count, and—he planned to use force.
Between Jan 31 and the election, March 5 the Nazis conducted the loudest, most expensive campaign of ten years—and also the most brutal and deadly. Hermann Goering was Minister of the Interior to Prussia (2/3 of Germany) and controlled the Prussian police. He ordered them to ban meetings, rallies, and newspapers of all opposing political parties. When the police didn’t act with sufficient force, Goering sent in 50,000 Nazi thugs from the SA the SS and the Stahlhelm and gave them cart blanch to murder and pillage. Hundreds of Germans were beaten, jailed and murdered. The courts were not allowed to touch the Nazis for any crime.
Goebbels believed this would cause a rebellion by the communists so the Nazis would have an excuse for martial law. However, the communist simply refused to rise to the bate. Most of them had left the country or gone underground.
The Nazi’s needed something to stampede the public before the election, so if the communist wouldn’t commit an act that would frighten the people, the Nazi’s would do it for them. On Feb 27 the Reichstag (Parliament building) caught fire. This was immediately blamed on the communist and was said to be the start of the revolution. Actually the fire was started by the Nazis.
On February 28, the day after the fire, Hitler announced an Emergency Decree, “for the Protection of the People and the State.” The decree suspended all parts of the constitution that guaranteed legal and civil rights: free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, all rights of assembly and association, all privacy rights of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, suspended the need for warrants for house searches and confiscations. Does any of this sound familiar? It should. If not, take a look at the Patriot Act.
It also authorized the Reich to take over state governments, allowed the at-will arrest of anyone, including elected members of the Reichstag and suspension of all electoral parties except NSDAP.(NAZI) Then he turned his Nazi thugs loose to terrorize the entire country. But you know what? Despite all the force and terror, Hitler still did not get the 2/3 majority. The Nazis only got 44% of the vote. Even with their right wing partners, they still didn’t have a 2/3s majority.
But Hitler was far from through with using democracy to bring democracy down. He forbid all elected communists from taking their seats in the Reichstag and arrested enough elected SPD (Social Democratic Party) members to get his 2/3s majority. Once he had it, he ask the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act that would give Hitler and his cabinet exclusive legislative powers for four years. As William Shirer put it, the parliament was to “turn over its constitutional functions to Hitler and take a long vacation.”
On March 31the Enabling act was used to dissolve the state governments and reconstitute as Nazi. On April 7 Hitler passed a law appointing Reich Governors in all states and empowering them to appoint and remove all local governments, all state officials, and all judges. AFTER THAT THERE WAS NO POWER BUT HITLER. NO CONSTITUTION, NO LEGAL OR CIVIL RIGHTS, NO DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, NO POLICE OR COURTS OR JUDGES OR ARMY NOT SUBJECT TO HITLER’S WILL. In addition, to fight Hitler, the people would also have to have fought his allies: The Church, the Military, Industrialists, the Financiers and bankers, the Right-wing Politicians, and Aristocracy.
If you had been a German democrat, where would you turn? What would you do? Can we as Americans reverse our own loss of rights and constitutional law before we find ourselves in a similar situation?
so does any one know any books about why societies/countries go to war
Sounds to me like Joan has written or is writing one.
Or if she hasn't/isn't she should. {}:-)
I took Psychology of the Holocaust at my local community college in the spring semester of '01, the first few weeks of which were spent on the history of anti-Semitism and the social, economic, and political situation of Germany that led up to Hitler and the Nazis being in power. Thinking on it, I wondered about something like that happening in the States and came to the conclusion that if anything were to save us from that kind of situation, it would be the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.To say what unfolded following 9/11 during Bush's terms in office (gained through vote tampering, I have no doubts whatsoever) left me genuinely scared more than a few times would be an understatement. I honestly felt like I was living in a nightmare and was very ready to leave the country. There were days when I wondered when persecution of the Muslims would start. The Constitution did save us, though I didn't see it being through term limits.
Jim- Historian Gwynne Dyer produced an excellent documentary on the subject of war for the CBC, and also wrote a book:http://www.gwynnedyer.com/index.html
Joan- Are you saying that you think a loss of democracy is imminent, or at least a strong possibility in the US today?
To GeoffThe question is: What is it that guarantees our freedom and the stability of our republic? Then you can begin to analyze whether those guarantees have been eroded by recent actions.
For the 2000 years before the American Revolution there were NO democracies. All governments were some form of absolute rule. Our brilliant founders did an audacious and wonderful thing. They dared to say that there was no Devine right to rule and that power to govern resided in the governed. This had not been said since the early Greek and Roman democracies failed. Then our founders had to find some way to prevent a person or group from seizing that power away from the people. The brilliant solution was a constitution that created separation of powers, powers capable of balancing power so no individual or group grabbed too much power. Then they added written guarantees of legal and civil rights of the people. Any action that damages that separation of power or those guarantees of rights can destroy our republic.
I see many things that make me fear we my already have already have gone so far it may be impossible to pull it back. Especially since we no longer educate our people in civics classes. Those things would include the Patriot Act, (which, like Hitler’s Emergency Decree, damaged our legal and civil rights and privacy rights) Bush’s use of Presidential signing statements, (His use was different than predecessors. He set the legal precedent of allowing the President to sign a bill and then say he was above the law and didn’t have to follow it. He disregarded congressional laws. This is almost as damaging as Hitler’s dismissal of the parliament in his Enabling Act) the Bush administration’s use of the Unitary President, (like Hitler’s Leader Principal-"Fuhrer Prinsep") set the precedent of expanding the Presidential power. To undo this we would need an educated population willing to fight for their rights and republic and we would need representatives who did not owe their souls to corporations.
To PeggyMy book is fiction, a political thriller titled Silent Coup. It has two stories: My Diana Hunter PI runs into the Patriot Act in a current time story and her great uncle Bennett Hunter runs into Hitler in 1932/33 as Hitler seizes power. The chapter are intowoven, include thrills and humour and disguise, etc. Check it out at my web site www.joanfrancis.net
To Joan:Count on me reading 'Silent Coup'. If you tell a story as well as you make a solid argument, I'm definitely going to enjoy it.
Thank you Cheryl. Hope you enjoy. Good or bad, please send a comment to my web site. Joan
Our History
Books mentioned in this topic
My Life with Bonnie and Clyde (other topics)Birds Without Wings (other topics)
The Road from Home: A True Story of Courage, Survival, and Hope (other topics)
Not Even My Name (other topics)
Salonica, City of Ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews, 1430-1950 (other topics)
More...
Hi Jim
The term common era has been in use in a number of sources since the 18th century, and arguably earlier than that. The usage is identical to the usage of the terms AD and BC, but eliminates the terms Christ and Domini from the language, making it a more neutral term and more acceptable to non-Christian audiences. Since CE or BCE can be considered to refer to either Common Era or Christian Era, it should be acceptable usage to everyone.
While Jewish historians used the term extensively in the last couple of centuries, it has only come into general usage in the past 50 years or so. Some sources choose to use it when writing about non-Christian societies only, continuing the use of AD and BC when discussing the western or Christian world. Others have begun using it as the default term for dating.
Hope that helps some.