There has been way too much flap about the “end of the millennium”: is it the bridge between 1999 and 200, or between 2000 and 2001?
First, that’s “millennium”. Two “n”s. Most misspelled word of 1999. (And 2000.)
Second, a millennium ends December 31, 2000. Another one ends tonight. A somewhat different millennium begins on June 3, 2004.
Third, it’s all post-dated crap anyway. “There was no Year Zero” tout the millenniumists. “Big whoop,” I say. “There was no Year One, either.” In about 532 AD of our current counting, some monk backdated events and declared a numbering system which would start with Christ being born at the start of Year One (which equated to something like Roman year 750 — look it up if you want it exact). Alas, he was wrong. (Does anyone still believe that other religious figure who figured out that the world was created in 4004 BC? If not, why do we weight this guy’s figures so strongly?) Based on historical records, Christ would have been born no later than 4 BC (by that calendar) — which means the “millennium” happened in 1996, and we all missed it!
Further, we celebrate Christ’s birthday a week before the first day of the new year, which twigs the calendar off by another week. But shepherds watched their flocks by night — to protect the lambs — which means Christ would have been born in, say, April. (April 15: now there’s a good day to celebrate!) And a couple hundred years ago, they “fixed” the calendar and shifted it by a couple weeks to account for proper leap year differences (causing the late-to-adopt Russians to have their October Revolution in November).
(Side Note: Christmas is situated in December because every other religion in the area had a winter solstice celebration, so the early Christians could hide their big one by doing it when others did theirs. The “reason for the season” is to avoid persecution.)
So, as you can see, December 31, 2000 is approximately 2000 years after absolutely nothing of significance.
At the end of December 31, 1999, however, we saw a whole bunch of digits flip over. We concluded all years starting with “1” and started all years starting with “2”. We held our collective breath about Y2K (and wasn’t that a yawner?). In comparison, what is interesting about the cusp of the 2000/2001 switch? Other than ushering in the Arthur C. Clarke year, will there be anything non-(faked up-)religious to “wow” about? We’ll have concluded what is termed the 20th century (and whether the year numbers are “right” or not, the number of years that have passed will be fairly firm and consistent) at least, but the number switch a year before will have taken so much of the wind out of the sails that it will be rather a denouement.
Your best bet: celebrate both dates — hedge your bets — and heck, celebrate for the entire year! Just don’t play that damn Prince song any more.
(But for the record: if the “second millennium” — if you want to call it that — doesn’t end until the conclusion of the year 2000, neither does the “twentieth century.” We haven’t hit the 21st Century quite yet, folks!)