> By contrast, applying names to periods of time is far less useful and far less portable across cultures. The 1800s looked very different in different parts of the world, but it was the same 100 year span everywhere. And we only do this for a handful of historical periods anyway (mostly seem to be named after British monarchs – Victorian, Georgian, Edwardian, etc). Applying those period names to places outside the British Empire is a bit like applying Japanese era names to European history.
Sure, but a lot more of the world was part of the British Empire during those periods than has ever been part of the Japanese (and there's a lot of second-order uses for cultural/artistic trends that originated in the British world of those times but are found elsewhere, e.g., “Victorian architecture”.)
> and there's a lot of second-order uses for cultural/artistic trends that originated in the British world of those times but are found elsewhere, e.g., “Victorian architecture”
I don't think there is an issue with speaking of "Victorian X" where X culturally originated in the British Empire. People talk about "Second Empire style" in the history of US and Canadian architecture, but neither was ever part of the Second French Empire. The problem is when people start talking about "Victorian X" when they aren't talking about the British Empire or its cultural exports, they are talking about things that happened outside it and not under its particular influence or involvement, but merely at the same time.
Sure, but a lot more of the world was part of the British Empire during those periods than has ever been part of the Japanese (and there's a lot of second-order uses for cultural/artistic trends that originated in the British world of those times but are found elsewhere, e.g., “Victorian architecture”.)