2005 is almost over. That's six years of this decade. And it hit me last night — we as a society have failed to come up with a name for this decade.
The eighties. The nineties. The ... um ... "this decade." It's almost like when you start to refer to it, you convince yourself you know what to call it, then hesitate and bail out to ... "this decade." It's cute, actually.
We've granted ourselves a free pass because ... "this decade" is the first one of the new century. So during the nascent years of .... "this decade" we were able to ride the "new century" and "new millennium" escalator to the pinnacle of hip, young dialogue! Cowabunga.
But we're almost into the seventh year of this decade, and we have yet to decide on a good moniker for this ten year chunk of time.
So no more pussyfooting around. Let's do this right now.
• Once in a while I've heard this decade being called The 2000s, because little do they realize that this is a horrible name for a decade. We're going to be in the 2000s long after this decade ends, and people will be all confused.
A historian in the future: "The 2000s was a turbulent decade. So turbulent, in fact, that it lasted a thousand years."Likelihood of withstanding the test of time: 5 percent, only because we may invent a time machine that warps us to the year 3000, in which case that decade alias would be accurate.
• If you wanted to go continue on with the standard numbers, The Zeroes would make the most sense mathematically, provided they can work out a licensing agreement with the Houston Texans.
• If a weatherman were to decide the name, he may opt for The Single Digits, for when he (incorrectly) predicts the temperature, he may say "the low 60s" or "the high 30s." When it gets to severe cold temperatures — the level where nipples turn to the firmness and shape of stale candy corn — your local meteorologist will refer to "the single digits." Then again, he may not. Instead he may say "the high 80s" just to screw with everyone's heads.
The shortcoming of this name is that The Single Digits has no suave abbreviation. The Sing Digs? No, those are our friendly neighbors who own that Chinese restaurant. The SDs is way too obscure, plus it's one stutter away from becoming two nasty concepts — SBDs or STDs.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JR
The Aughts
As in, they ought to have gone a lot better but for that stupid election.
You know, the problem with 9-11 is that for the rest of the world that's November 9th. But we don't care, do we?
2 - Eric Olsen
nice Matt! I call it the "oh-oh's."
Will we call the period from 2010-2014 the tweens?
3 - Michael J. West
I call it the "oh-oh"s too. And that's what I think everytime I see "the 00's" written out. (Ha! Look at that! I'm thinking it again right now.)
However, somebody recently pointed me towards a rerun of the Beverly Hillbillies, wherein Jethro says that he wants to be a "Double Naught Spy" (i.e., "007.")
I move we call this decade "the double naughts."
4 - John Owen
I call it Steve.
Nice work, Matt!
5 - Matthew T. Sussman
The Oh-Ohs?
Who are you all of a sudden, Ric Ocasek?
6 - Penny Woods
The "Goose-Egg" years--that's what I call this period.
Just wondering if anybody wanted to change the name of "Generation Y" to something more tolerable, maybe the "TRL generation," although I hate the show?
7 - visualsimplicity
How about the Pre-Tens (or pre-teens)? I'm thinking of this purely as number descriptions.
The Nineties
The Seventies
The Fifties
The Thirties
The Tens
The Pre-Tens
8 - visualsimplicity
Actually, upon further thinking, that doesn't work. What do we currently call the 1900-1909 decade? The 1900's. So in essence, your dislike of The 2000's is the only logical description going forward for the years of 2000-2009.
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
VS:
But nothing happened between 1900-09. Nothing. It's the boring part of The Onion's Our Dumb Century. So it's not called anything.
10 - visualsimplicity
Okay, fine. What do we call the period between 1800-1809 then? I believe call it the 1800's. And if nothing happened between 1800-1809 and it remains unnamed, how about 1700-1709 then? Or 1600-1609? Or 1500-1509? Or 1400-1409? Or 1300-1309? Or 1200-1209? Or 1100-1109? Or 1000-1009? Or 900-909? Or 800-809? Or 700-709? Or 600-609? Or 500-509? Or 400-409? Or 300-309? Or 200-209? Or 100-109? Or 0-9? Actually, to this date, I still don't know what we call the years between 0-9. I guess I haven't thought that far back.
11 - diana hartman
i don't know what to call the decade but that article sure was funny!
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
VS, yeesh. I've never seen the following question on an essay teset:
1. The years 1800-1809 was an important time in American history. Describe society during this time and compare it to its neighboring decades. Use the space provided
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Perhaps in 100 years or so we can say the 2000s to differentiate between the 2000s and the 2100s. Till then, enjoy The Aughts.
13 - visualsimplicity
Hey hey, I'm just trying to generalize here. There is a given system to name the decades right? If the century for that decade isn't up yet, it's called by the first 2 digits, such as, the 1990's being called the nineties, but if it is, then it's called by the entire thing, such as, the 1890's being called the eighteen-nineties. See. Generalization simplifies things.
But, since there isn't really a "-ties" for 0-9, and seeing how 10-19 is called the tens, can't we in essence, call 0-9, the Ones? There, that's my new proposal, how about that?
14 - alienboy
The Oughters?
15 - Anthony Grande
Thaed fo eht citarcomed ytrap.
16 - Bennett
Otters?
"Yeah, back in the otters..."
I dunno, I get on the "the 1920s" but would have a hard time using anything similar for 1900-1909 and 1910-1919.
Strange gap, that.
17 - RogerMDillon
"That's six years of this decade."
Actually, it's five. The decade began in 2001 and will end when 2010 ends. Funny article, but there's no reason it can't be accurate.
How about we call them "the Clarkes"?
18 - Darren
I vote for the Double Naughts. It rolls off the tongue rather nicely, and after all, aren't we trying to make this a relatively easy thing to remember? Future historians will just avoid talking about this decade altogether, just as we do the, ...uh, period between 1900-1910.
19 - Victor Lana
I've heard many people call it the "Ohs."
In a meeting I heard a guy say, "Back in twenty oh three."
I also overheard two teenage girls in Starbucks.
One said, "Remember the fear about the millenium?"
"Yeah," said the other, "back in twenty oh-oh."
Ric Ocasek indeed!
20 - Matthew T. Sussman
* The decade began in 2001 and will end when 2010 ends.
You're just jealous because you didn't get an invitation to Newmanium.
21 - RogerMDillon
You must be joking. The show sucked by that point and was a pathetic copy of itself. They stayed on two or three years too long. It jumped the shark right after Elaine became George.
22 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
i've heard talk of the Noughties. like Naughty, i suposse. it is troubling. they didn't care about it in 1900-1909 because they didn't have to worry about nostalgia shows on telly back then. in ten years time, what are they gonna say? who the hell knows?
23 - Phillip Winn
I like to refer to it as "the new millenium," with just a bit of arch irony in my voice. You know, like the Conan O'Brien segment on the DVD you linked.
24 - Luke
I've always called it the zero's, makes sense to me, zero ten twenty thirty, zeros tens twenties thirties, why is this not obvious to everyone else?
and also "Actually, it's five. The decade began in 2001 and will end when 2010 ends. Funny article, but there's no reason it can't be accurate." <--this is fuckin stupid, 2001 was the start of the new millenium, but decades and centuries have always been called when there's a zero at the end, after all, the eighties were called the eighties because they began with 8, the nineties were the nineties because they began with 9, the year 2000 was not part of the nineties.
25 - Matthew T. Sussman
This thread is proof we need to decide on something now. And I motion everyone just listen to me.