[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Robbie Honerkamp <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't know why, but I'm as annoyed with people claiming that 2000
>is the beginning of a new millennium as Clarke is.
Actually, every year is the beginning of some millennium, as the word just
means "a 1000-year period". What people mean with it is that they are refering
to a 1000 years in the current western (Gregorian) calendar system. The
whole discussion about Jan 1 2000 or 2001 is moot: the Gregorian calendar
didn't start until it was adopted in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. There simply
can't be a millennium under that calendar yet because that calendar system
isn't that old yet. Celebrating a millennium on Jan 1 2001 is basically
celebrating the passing of 1000 years since a day that wasn't that special
at the time, just close to what they at that time regarded to be a 1000 years
since the birth of Jesus Christ. And talking about Him, we now know that he
wasn't born in 1AD, but actually a couple of years earlier. The error was
introduced in the fourth century when Christians decided to have their own
calendar that started with what they felt was their best estimate of the year
of Jesus' birth... who BTW also wasn't born on December the 25th, but that's
another story. On top of that, people using the Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, etc...
calendars won't be too impressed or concerned with our 'millennium' either.
Basically, I'm celebrating BOTH Jan 1 2000 and 2001. They're both good reasons
for a party. Then again, so are the start of the mating season of icelandic
geese, a day my desktop computer didn't crash, or finally getting rid of that
flint in my jeans' right front pocket...
"Do you hear the people sing, Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people, Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth, There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end, And the sun will rise." -- Les Miserables