On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, the awl was quoted:
> <http://www.theawl.com/2009/11/2000-2009-toward-a-new-terminology>
>
> 2000-2009: Toward A New Terminology
>
> We are almost done with this ridiculous decade and we have yet to reach
> consensus on a proper way to describe the period.
Actually I think we have a consensus in practice. We don't call it a decade. We call it the 21st century, usually used as an adjective. It's hard to compete with that when you're in the the mood to make a broad or facile generalizations, which is mood that leads one to reach for decade-labels in the first place.
I suspect they did something similar in the 1900s as well. And then in later years, it was referred to as "the turn of the century," or "the beginning of the 19th century" or "early in the 19th century." Because that's still how we refer to 1900-1909. A century later, we still haven't came up with a name for that decade, never mind naming it 10 years later. Occasionally people have wondered what they called it during the time. Now I think we know.
Michael