Bill Gates Wants To Remake the Way History Is Taught. Should We Let Him?

theodp (442580) writes With his Big History Project, the NY Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin reports that Bill Gates wants to remake the way history is taught (intro video). Last month, the Univ. of California system announced that a version of the Big History Project course could be counted in place of a more traditional World History class, paving the way for the state's 1,300 high schools to offer it. Still, not everyone's keen on the idea. "Is this Bill Gates's history?" asks NYU's Diane Ravitch. "And should it be labeled 'Bill Gates's History'? Because Bill Gates's history would be very different from somebody else's who wasn't worth $50-60 billion." Of the opposition to Gates, Scott L. Thomas of Claremont Graduate University explains, 'Frankly, in the eyes of the critics, he's really not an expert. He just happens to be a guy that watched a DVD and thought it was a good idea and had a bunch of money to fund it."

Comments

In Soviet USA

[MarcosYXY]

Oligarchs make history

Re:In Soviet USA

[mdtiemann]

^ Good one! Is this better (when read with a thick Russian accent): In Soviet USA, history is subject of oligarchs.

So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

I think his "common core" plan has largely backfired because it was rolled out on a federal level and states were pretty much strong armed into it.

I'd be more comfortable with these changes if they were OFFERED and not at gun point.

Our education system could be improved in a lot of ways. But those improvements should be optional to the education systems and not compelled.

Here some people will say "well we didn't force them to do the other thing." but that's often not true because they're often offered a lot of money to adopt new programs. the money they're offered comes from federal coffers. The money in federal coffers comes from everyone. So basically you lose money if you don't sign onto the program because the government will then take money from you and give it to someone else. The only way to get your money back is to adopt the program.

So that's an issue. These cash payouts to states and cities for adopting federal programs needs to stop unless states and cities that do not adopt programs get a relative tax decrease. Such that if a given state didn't sign onto these things they didn't pay for them.

Absent that they're being compelled and I do have a problem with that.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Anonymous Coward]

ah the state.. stealing your money and offering to give some of it back if you do what they want you to.

Re:So long as it is consential

[sensei moreh]

"Improvements" should be optional. Improvements should not be. The question is, how do we distinguish the former from the latter?

Re:So long as it is consential

[dfenstrate]

I really think school districts ought to start performing audits of the expenses associated with receiving federal money. Some districts have found, for example, that if they opt out of the federal school lunch guidelines championed by the first lady, the programs are quickly back in the black. Less wasted food, more purchases, and no time spent verifying compliance for grant money. The federal funds were insufficient to cover the losses associated with the mandates that came with the money.

I suspect a lot of federal school mandates would end up the same way. Ditching federal money might allow for a number of compliance administrators to be cut from a school district, and give teachers more time to do their jobs.

Re:So long as it is consential

[supercrisp]

Common Core as a set of curricular guidelines isn't bad at all. The problems I see are: 1), the "coercion" -- cash-strapped districts really do have to jump at any money, so they rush into implementation; 2) more high-stakes standardized testing; that shit has already dominated and f*cked-up education; 3) corporate domination; Pearson and others stand to make fat, fat stacks of cash on the tests and the materials, and that's why they all poured money into the campaigns. I've seen first-hand what the Person vertically-integrated education ecosystem is like. They sell you shit in development, shit that doesn't work, and shit that's just plain shit. I hate them. NB: college professor at an institution that had a contract to use only Pearson; spouse is in instructional tech and shares my opinion. The best thing we could do is hire more teachers, pay them a little better, and start doing something to reduce the stranglehold that corporations like Pearson have on the education system. Stuff like Kahn Academy is fine, but I don't think online education gives students what they need, which is contact with an educated, adult mentor/teacher. (And, yeah, I know, a lot of teachers we have now don't fit that bill, but that's what young people need.)

Re:So long as it is consential

[openfrog]

Absent that they're being compelled and I do have a problem with that.

I do. 'Big History', to begin with, is so ugly a term and reminds one so much of Novlang that it is scary. World History is fine with me, or is too 'liberal'?

Otherwise, your post is insightful. You point out how these ugly things are forced upon unwilling public institutions.

Re:So long as it is consential

[MightyYar]

Common core was adopted at the state level. Your history is backwards.

Re:So long as it is consential

[silfen]

Our education system could be improved in a lot of ways. But those improvements should be optional to the education systems and not compelled.

Sure, after we get school choice and school vouchers that let parents take their kids to the school of their choice, a school that teaches their kids the way the parents like it, not the way politicians or teachers' unions want it.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Kohath]

It's time for an end to one-size-fits-all government education schemes.

Re:So long as it is consential

[WOOFYGOOFY]

It is what some young people need, but it's very very expensive. If you teach 8 kids, the maximum (let's guess) you could actually give tutorial - mentor attention to over the course of 8 hours, how much does each family need to pony up to keep YOU happy?

$9,000, not including any benefits, workman's comp, administrative overhead, just here's 9k cash in your hand and thanks for teaching my kid.

Education is a loss leader for people who give it, that is, the state, the taxpayer. People just have to accept the true price of education, so we don't end up having to pay the cost of an uneducated population.

Well, perhaps Zuckerberg's idea raiding, via H1B immigration, other nation's state sponsored educational products is an alternative....

Seriously, the idea is we lose money on education but make it up having a capable citizenry.

Yes, it's unfortunate that some players attempt to maximize their profits any way they can and screw the actual effect they have on education. It's the "I'm going to get mine" mentality that American's have always had towards each other. This goes by the polite name of "ambition" in some political circles and the resultant widespread destruction and concentration of wealth is called "success".

Privatization can't work on a widespread scale for everyone, the numbers just aren't there. Only rich people can afford the 20k a year for little Jamie's education. For a lot of people, that's everything they make.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karganeth]

Why do you have such a problem with the state compelling you to pay for something you might not like? That's the entire basis of the tax system. From what you've written it seems to follow that you're against all taxes.

Re:So long as it is consential

[phantomfive]

I think his "common core" plan has largely backfired because it was rolled out on a federal level and states were pretty much strong armed into it.

According to this article, he's been working with individual schools to help (convince) them to adopt the program, working from the grassroots up. So I guess he learned something from it.

Frankly, after reading the article I'm surprised it has found any traction at all, because the way he wants history portrayed is so 'atheist', starting with the big bang, that I can't see the federal government ever trying to push it. There would be a huge backlash.

Re:So long as it is consential

[phantomfive]

I recently read a plan to fix this problem with a multi-step process:

1) unify all the accounting for the funds given to the various state governments.
2) give the money to the states as a single lump sum instead of as multiple sundry payments
3) over a period of ~7 years, scale back the money given to the states to $0, giving them time to replace the money with their own taxes.

Re:So long as it is consential

[rbrander]

Please don't apply that belief to ASTM standards for wiring. Poor states would have 50 house fires per day.

It's funny, nobody suggests applying "local standards" to other professions. Yes, each state may have their own certification for accountants and engineers and so on, but the *standards and practices* are much more widespread. Nobody shops around for the doctor that meets local standards for appendectomies.

I don't crap on people who believe this stuff, but MY private belief is that they want to ensure that money from wealthier school districts never leaks over into poorer ones.

Re:So long as it is consential

[fermion]

One problem with education is that is it 'consensual' For instance, no child left behind set standards, but then left the states to meet those standard. While some good was done with the non-consual bits, i.e. well qualified teachers, hundreds of billions of local tax dollars were wasted paying testing companies and writing curriculum that to some extent were significant duplications of effort.

What needs to be left to local authorities, even down to the teacher, is the choice of how to teach material and a limited buffet of what to teach. What needs to be done on a interstate level is developing the methods of how that learning is going to be assessed. If there was a more consistent, maybe crowdsource, assessment then teachers would probably more understand what they are supposed to teach. Outside of history of the local area, there is little reason to have significant differences in content. What we can have is local differences in content that is emphasized.

The biggest hurdle to this, and the biggest damage the NCLB did, was the need to rank teachers and students. Current testing is not objective based mastery, but rather ranking. This requires an extremely expensive test, with passing levels set arbitratily after the test is given, often to maximize the success of preferred groups of students, rather than based on the objective performance of the student to show mastery of a benchmark number of standards. Therefore instead of measuring that a student has learned the material, and that a teacher has facilitated such learning, we merely have a continuum that is independent of learning, only indicating the ability to fill in bubbles effectively.

This is where the current reforms are still failing. Leaving the punitive ranking system behind and rather focusing on learning. Common Core is a step away from this, which is why no one likes it. Parents like to know their kid is better than others. Administrators like to be able to rank teachers on arbitrary statistically invalid scales.

Re: So long as it is consential

[JWW]

Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.

Progressives always argue against BIG corporations and they always argue FOR the largest and most powerful organization on the planet being given MORE power. Their blind faith in the state is terrifying.

Re:So long as it is consential

[silfen]

Please don't apply that belief to ASTM standards for wiring. Poor states would have 50 house fires per day. It's funny, nobody suggests applying "local standards" to other professions.

What are you talking about? Lots of people want mandatory building codes abolished. Nevertheless, there is an essential difference between building codes and history: at least for building codes, you can objectively determine what effects they have (at least in principle); for interpretations of history, you cannot.

I don't crap on people who believe this stuff, but MY private belief is that they want to ensure that money from wealthier school districts never leaks over into poorer ones.

Not sure what you mean by that. The school districts spending the most money per student are often the ones doing most poorly. And the people who hold these kinds of beliefs (myself included) would actually like to see school voucher and school choice programs that let poor students go to whatever schools there are, including the ones in "wealthier school districts". It's people who hold beliefs like you who strenuously oppose school choice and school vouchers.

You seem to live in a fictional universe where building codes demonstrably protect people, history teaches objective truths, and spending more money on education leads to better outcomes while forcing students to keep attending shitty schools and forcing school districts to keep retaining lousy teachers. In the real universe, none of those statements are true; they are self-serving myths created by people wanted to enrich themselves at others' expense.

Re:So long as it is consential

[silfen]

You know re-reading your response, I have to say: you really have to be a f*cking partisan moron to accuse people who favor school choice and school vouchers of "want[ing] to ensure that money from wealthier school districts never leaks over into poorer ones". Really, you deserve to be "crapped upon", using your words.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Anonymous Coward]

And then watch the riots as many states discover that they've been living off Federal money collected from other more prosperous states. Even worse, the corporate exodus would continue and all corporations would gather in a state with few people and few services needing tax-based support. You would need some drastic restructuring of the interstate commerce clause, or a euro-style VAT on transactions, in order to keep tax monies where the people need services.

It is an interesting thought experiment though... let states do almost all the taxation and spending and only minimal unidirectional flow from state to federal government for centralized operations. Your state income tax would be huge while your federal tax would be minimal or perhaps non-existent if the states themselves had to pay the fed instead of individual citizens. I think big "blue" states like CA, NY, IL would cope adapt to this while many "red" states would suffer mightily.

Also, how would big federal agencies work? Would the military, intelligence, and investigative agencies split into state-level operations with their own recruitment and procurement? If not, the huge funding flow into the federal agency and back into states who provide material and service support would prop up the old system of federal monies and pork-barrel politics.

Re: So long as it is consential

[Artifakt]

Except no major political group actually acts on what you said (and I'm counting the Libertarian left in' major' there). Why fuss about the size of government if that argument leads to cutting only the parts of government that can't directly come and shoot you? Why is so much of the movement for smaller government focused on cutting the EPA, which can't come and shoot you, or the NEA, which can't come and shoot you, or NASA, which can't come and shoot you, and not on military and homeland security related agencies which can? Why are many conservatives terribly worried about the National Education Association taking their homeschooled kids away, but not noticing that the NEA has no guns, and has to get some judge and some other agency to cooperate if it wants to shoot you, but if some guy from a homeland security related agency wants to mess with you as much as that NEA person did, they don't have to get any outside help to leave your widow filing on your behalf? Why did Ron Paul want to cut the entire department of Energy, but stop advocating that when he found out that DOE has police like powers and numerous weapons systems to protect the US nuclear arsenal when it's on US soil, and start focusing on only the energy research part?

      To sum it up, why do people who advance your argument then damned near universally turn around and advocate reining in big government by first eliminating a department that has no weapons and no police or military like powers?

Re:So long as it is consential

[phantomfive]

Even worse, the corporate exodus would continue and all corporations would gather in a state with few people and few services needing tax-based support

Just so you know, this already happens. Corporations flock to states like Nevada and Delaware where they get fewer taxes, even if all they have is a PO box in those states. So, nothing to worry about.

Also, how would big federal agencies work?

The federal government would still collect money to handle all programs that weren't handed over to the states.

Right now there are a lot of programs that the federal government mandates but sends the money directly to the states. These are the programs that are targeted: if the state is running them, cutting out the middle-man of the federal government makes sense. If I were in charge of the transition, I would make sure that the scope is limited enough to be certain it would work (ie, I wouldn't transfer social security to the states, because I'm not as confident I could do that successfully. But I feel confident I could transfer the department of education funding successfully because it's more limited in scope).

Re: So long as it is consential

[ChrisMaple]

You'd be surprised at the government agencies and departments that do have guns. Agriculture has had guns for 80 years or more. The FDA has performed armed raids. Your claim to the contrary notwithstanding, I'd be very surprised if the EPA doesn't have some armed division.

Some of this is recent; there has been a great deal of firearm and ammunition purchasing by the federal government during the Obama administration, with resultant shortages in the consumer market.

Re:So long as it is consential

[ChrisMaple]

Defense Department is only 18% of the federal budget. The other Constitutionally legal expenses (courts, salaries on Capitol Hill and in the White House) are trivial by comparison. When the numbers are much smaller, it's easier to get the money. Require each state to send to the federal government an amount of money proportional to its population; no "tax too much and Uncle Sugar will send back the excess" because that's an invitation to corruption and extortion. Other funds from import duties.

The smaller government is, the less of a draw it is to people who want to steal or beg, and people who want to be the boss.

Re:So long as it is consential

[ChrisMaple]

Current primary public school education cost is $13,000 per student annually. 20 students per class is still considered a small class by most reasonable people. If 20 students cannot be taught well for $260,000 a year, then something is very badly wrong that throwing money at will not fix.

Common Core is attempting to make things much, much worse. History under Common Core is disjointed, ignores or downplays most important people and events while emphasizing the unimportant, plays to the PC crowd and the anti-capitalist mentality. Math under Common Core is complicated, obfuscated, and crippled. Literature is de-emphasized, fragmented and uninspiring. The unstated goal of Common Core is to make docile employee drones and bureaucrats, the kind Bill Gates would love to have.

Re: So long as it is consential

[dryeo]

Never heard of the mafia? Actually corporations and other private enterprises have a long history of shooting people, cutting of their hands, etc when they choose not to give what the private enterprise wants, often labour rather then money. In America it started with Columbus cutting the hands of the native labourers if they didn't produce enough gold. Seemed Columbus had investors at home demanding a return on their investment. This went to the limit in the Congo Free State, the only privately operated African colony, where whippings and amputation were used regularly on labourers who didn't produce enough.
There's also the examples of the various East India companies where private companies had whole armies to get what they wanted . And back to America, the Pinkertons and such were private corporations that were hired by other private corporations to enforce taking labour for below costs, and often keeping the labourers working in the company town so they had to give their paycheck back to the company.
It's just that recently private companies have discovered it is better to socialize these costs and it's better PR.

Re:So long as it is consential

[ChrisMaple]

Common Core is a partnership of business and government, i.e. fascism. Regardless of its origin, for several years it has been pushed hard by the federal government onto the state governments and lower government levels. One hook being used is that implementing Common Core standards releases a state from the restrictions of Bush's terrible "No Child Left Behind" program.

CC is very deceptive. Read the promotional material, and it looks like a substantial improvement in public education. Get into the details or listen in a classroom, and understand where things used to be 50 years ago, and you'll see substantial degradation.

The actual details of CC are slippery. When something bad comes into widespread public recognition, it disappears and is replaced with something worse, all the while with the promoters saying "That's not in Common Core." When Common Core is widely despised in some region, turds like Mike Huckabee advocate changing the program's name without changing its content.

Want a conspiracy theory? Here's your conspiracy.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

There is no reason for a federal program especially when the federal government as you've just pointed out is bad at setting up and managing these programs.

It makes no more sense then attempting to regulate college education in the same manner. Obviously the individual universities, academic departments, and professors are better at establishing what are and are not reasonable standards then is the federal government.

The US federal government does not attempt to micromanage how Harvard or Stanford or any other university teaches its courses.

Why is that? And why do you think it is reasonable for the US federal government to micromanage grade school teachers but not professors? Is the idea that those teachers are incompetent? If so, that would argue that we should increase the academic requirements to teach in the first place rather then attempt to regulate how students are themselves taught.

Generally, I am very dubious of big government programs designed to regulate very complicated things over long periods of time. I say this because government is inherently a centralization of power. And as a centralization it means that there are fewer people in charge then in a decentralized system. That means that how ever smart those people might be they have more work to do per person if they're doing their job then if you have a decentralized system. This leads to conflicting projects and distractions which allows for things to fall apart when people aren't paying attention. What is more, it is an inherently political process which means the most important thing at any given point will be how all of it makes the politicians LOOK in the eyes of the voters. Projects that run over long periods of time rarely harm politicians even if very badly run. They're not held accountable for them. Bad schools don't lose politicians elections. And as such they're never going to care about them.

A more reasonable system would be to have principles of schools elected by the parents of students. In that way, the principle is responsible to the voters that actually will be aware of and care about the school.

That is just a one off idea of something that might improve the situation. But really, I just find these sorts of programs to be a waste of collective money and time. And that is at best... at worst they can tie the hands of good teachers and force them to do things in inefficient or even counter productive fashions that retard learning or even undermine the entire academic institution.

If you would like a counter example where the government learned this lesson, you can look to Vietnam. In that war, there was an attempt to use modern communication to run the war from the Pentagon instead of from the battlefield. The modern military textbooks today go into some detail talking about how that was a mistake and lead to serious errors in the prosecution of that war. Current doctrine discourages remote generals from micromanaging their commanders in the field. Rather, encouraging such people to craft grand strategy, manage logistics, and act as interlocutors for subordinates.

The point I am making is that over centralization of authority leads to serious problems on many levels. Decentralization might be chaotic but it is also typically more efficient, adaptive, and reliable. I would say we probably have too much centralization simply in the school districts themselves with too much authority being granted to school administrators that do not even go to work in complexes where students are taught. I would be much happier with individual schools being allowed to set their own standards and have those judged by their own community directly without external interference.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

As to your private belief, school vouchers wouldn't stop money from flowing into poorer schools or change the over all economic dynamics.

After all, the vouchers are provided through tax dollars. If I give an equal voucher to everyone then I've redistributed wealth.

As to wealthier school districts losing money to poorer ones, I don't see what that has to do with common core.

The big danger here really is that common core is so incompetent that it renders high functioning schools incompetent.

From a statistical stand point some might like this because it might level the playing field... rendering all high schools equally incompetent. However, equality by hobbling outstanding exceptions is not in the public interest.

Rather, you should encourage high functioning institutions to share their practices with other schools.

In many cases this will be impractical only because the students in one school are not equatable to students at another. However, that needs to be addressed separately. Once you can consistently produce the same quality education at any school given equal initial students you can then address the distinctions that make it hard for those with special needs to adapt.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

The problem with paying teachers better is that many teachers do not teach. They're administrators... but they're in the teacher's union and draw larger salaries then the teachers. Often they are promoted out of teaching to administer. Which is fine... only in many cases the systems become so top heavy that there are two or even three administrators for every teacher. Which is in part why the education system is always broke. You give them more money and they just hire more administrators.

I'd be more comfortable with paying teachers better IF the budgets were compartmentalized to separate the costs of teachers from the cost of buildings, administrators, janitors, etc. The raw cost of the actual teachers that teach should be a separate component of the budget.

I fear that if we just give the government in general more money for education they might not only spend the money on something that isn't teachers but might not even spend it on education at all.

In California, it is very common for the government to raise a tax for education, get it passed, and then deduct from the education budget whatever that tax generates. Such that the money from the tax goes to education but the actual budget of education remains unchanged... the difference going into the general fund which can be spent on anything at all.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

Why do you assume the poorer states even need that money?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/c...

If the United Kingdom were a US state, it would be poorer then EVERY state in the US except for Mississippi. Consider what the UK can afford and you can understand that every US state is perfectly capable of providing for the education of its people without federal support. If the above statistic is valid... and I think it is correct 'enough' to carry the point... then we shouldn't have a problem providing everyone with the education they need on a state level.

No state needs the federal money.

Might some state taxes have to go up as a result of not getting the federal money? Perhaps. But then by the same token, the federal taxes could be reduced. Is there a reason this money needs to flow through Washington?

Would that lack of redistribution of wealth between the states cause problems? I don't see how it could. Areas that are considered wealthier are often not. They typically just have a higher population density. And even if you say their average income might be higher, that ignores that their costs of living tend to be higher as well. The end result tends to be that the objective standard of living is pretty comparable in most respects.

Part of how that statistics about the UK was created is that it took cost of living into consideration. You can say a dollar is worth a dollar but what does a dollar buy you? And in some places money goes farther. Which means that money is worth more in those places which means that to account for wealth in various areas you have to adjust their money for what their money buys.

Really, a lot of this is about understanding statistics. You have to be careful with them.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

I think the best way is to have the principle of given schools elected by parents. Consider that small towns elect their local police chiefs. In larger cities it is not uncommon to elect police commissioners. But lets focus on the schools. Schools tend to have somewhere between 500 and 5000 students. I think giving parents one vote PER student contributed to the school is reasonable. So if you have two kids in the school, you get two votes. That's 500 to 5000 votes cast at most. Obviously a lot of parents won't vote at all but those will be the ones too apathetic to care or too satisfied to bother suggesting something.

In addition you might want to make the system bicameral somehow as that seems to even out distortions in democratic processes. Possibly give the teachers each a vote so that school policy is decided through the consensus of teachers and parents with the principle being elected to some term. No fancy elections are required. In small towns they often don't make much of a production over their local elections. They put some ads in the paper that declare what they believe or will do... make some statements at some city meetings... and then people just vote whenever the election comes up.

Regardless, you could make that a component of parent teacher meetings. Turn them into city councils where parents can vote on stuff. Obviously big changes should require a super majority while smaller changes should be actionable on a plurality.

I think that would fix a lot of this as it would make school administrations much more responsive to the concerns of parents. if they understand that pissing the parents off means people lose their jobs then the schools should be more service oriented which should improve service.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

ironic... you realize that useful idiots were the people that were supposedly duped by Stalin into believing in the Soviet model. These were often academics, artists, various famous people... invited to Russia, treated to a very warm and friendly stay... so they would use their influence back home to say how nice the Soviets are and how we should be more like them.

The line "useful idiot" is attributed to Stalin commenting about such people.

And here you are... saying that people that argue against the centralized federal government intruding into every aspect of our lives are useful idiots.

In truth, neither of us is a useful idiot. You've used the term incorrectly. Neither of us have been wined and dined by some political organization to support their cause... unless we want to talk about the entitlements and various other bribes given by politicians to make people vote for them. That might be a kind of useful idiot but really I think that just stretches the reference beyond all recognition. The situations are not really comparable.

Re: So long as it is consential

[OneAhead]

Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.

Those who do not learn from history...

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

The states have always set the education standards. And this country used to have better education standards and statistics BEFORE the federal education programs.

So... put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

Sure, if I'm against any tax, then I must be against all taxes.

I love this little fallacy. Anyone says its too much and fucktards like you show up to say that if we aren't okay with unlimited taxes we must be against all taxes.

And you'd probably say the same thing if I started saying the government has too much power or authority. You'd then say that if I am not okay with having every aspect of my life dominated then I must be an anarchist.

Seriously... this sort of thing works on the ignorant. But on anyone with any education in basic logic the whole premise is just laughable.

Try again.

Re: So long as it is consential

[khallow]

Never heard of the mafia?

A group which profited immensely and rose to national scale power on the US's former prohibition on alcohol.

In America it started with Columbus cutting the hands of the native labourers if they didn't produce enough gold.

Columbus was sponsored by and appointed as a representative of the Spanish crown. And the Crown was to keep 90% of whatever profit he obtained from the various expeditions. From Wikipedia:

The Capitulations of Santa Fe between Christopher Columbus and the Catholic Monarchs were signed in Santa Fe, Granada on April 17, 1492. They granted Columbus the titles of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, the Viceroy, the Governor-General and honorific Don, and also the tenth part of all riches to be obtained from his intended voyage.

Moving on:

This went to the limit in the Congo Free State, the only privately operated African colony, where whippings and amputation were used regularly on labourers who didn't produce enough.

A private corporation owned by the head of state of Belgium and which used the military power of Belgium to help maintain profits.

There's also the examples of the various East India companies where private companies had whole armies to get what they wanted .

Again, backed by military power of countries, particularly that of England and the Netherlands.

And back to America, the Pinkertons and such were private corporations that were hired by other private corporations to enforce taking labour for below costs, and often keeping the labourers working in the company town so they had to give their paycheck back to the company.

And backed by law enforcement at various levels from local through to federal. If one reads of their exploits, one notices that there are always some sort of government representative present (usually a law enforcement officer).

It's just that recently private companies have discovered it is better to socialize these costs and it's better PR.

How many millennia is "recently"? I recall several infamous cases during the times of the Roman Republic and Empire, such as Boudicca's rebellion (which happened because a bunch of politically connected Romans grabbed real estate via military force from her tribe in a very nasty and brutal takeover which included the flogging of Boudicca and rape of her daughters) or the various state-funded misadventures of Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man of the time in the Roman Empire.

Sure, business provides a ready motive to turn on fellow man, but the power of the state provides the means.

Re: So long as it is consential

[khallow]

Except no major political group actually acts on what you said (and I'm counting the Libertarian left in' major' there). Why fuss about the size of government if that argument leads to cutting only the parts of government that can't directly come and shoot you?

The "Libertarian left" is an obvious counterexample to your above assertion. Among other things, they advocate substantial decrease in the US military and an end to US military adventurism. It doesn't make sense to me how people can just assert things without even looking at what actually is happening.

Re: So long as it is consential

[Jason Levine]

Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.

No, but in the "bad old days", if you decided to strike, they could hire people to kill you.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre :

The company hired the Baldwin–Felts Detective Agency to protect the new workers and harass the strikers.

Baldwin–Felts had a reputation for aggressive strike breaking. Agents shone searchlights on the tent villages at night and fired bullets into the tents at random, occasionally killing and maiming people. They used an improvised armored car, mounted with a machine gun the union called the "Death Special" to patrol the camp's perimeters. The steel-covered car was built in the CF&I plant in Pueblo, Colorado from the chassis of a large touring sedan. Frequent sniper attacks on the tent colonies drove the miners to dig pits beneath the tents where they and their families could be better protected.

And, if that didn't work, the company could just get the National Guard to do their dirty work:

The fighting raged for the entire day. The militia was reinforced by non-uniformed mine guards later in the afternoon. At dusk, a passing freight train stopped on the tracks in front of the Guards' machine gun placements, allowing many of the miners and their families to escape to an outcrop of hills to the east called the "Black Hills." By 7:00 p.m., the camp was in flames, and the militia descended on it and began to search and loot the camp. Louis Tikas had remained in the camp the entire day and was still there when the fire started. Tikas and two other men were captured by the militia. Tikas and Lt. Karl Linderfelt, commander of one of two Guard companies, had confronted each other several times in the previous months. While two militiamen held Tikas, Linderfelt broke a rifle butt over his head. Tikas and the other two captured miners were later found shot dead. Tikas had been shot in the back.[24] Their bodies lay along the Colorado and Southern Railway tracks for three days in full view of passing trains. The militia officers refused to allow them to be moved until a local of a railway union demanded the bodies be taken away for burial.

During the battle, four women and eleven children had been hiding in a pit beneath one tent, where they were trapped when the tent above them was set on fire. Two of the women and all of the children suffocated. These deaths became a rallying cry for the UMWA, who called the incident the "Ludlow Massacre."

Of course, I'm sure - in Bill Gates' version of history - companies were always benevolent entities who just want to look out for their workers' best interests.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

Several problems.

1. Your test assumes that you're testing for everything that is important. It doubtless misses things or doesn't appreciate the value of some things. By syncing all schools to the same standard if you make a mistake then all schools will make the same mistake at the same time. With diversity all the schools make different mistakes but not all of them make the same mistakes. This generates a more diverse student body which is more adaptable given that some of them will be able to do different things at different levels of ability.

2. National standardized tests are only relevant for colleges or student transfers. They have no utility to the student's actual education or the school's administration of that education absent transfers. Emphasizing standardized tests encourages route learning of test questions, drilling for multiple choice tests, and other things which are only useful for the taking of similar tests. That has no utility to the child's education in any way besides making them better at taking more tests.

3. As to what constitutes passing, that is largely the result of lots of students failing and rather then fix the problem they just pass more students so their statistics look better. Your notion of standardizing what is passing or failing does not change this situation. All you'll do is embarrass failed institutions that are also corrupt enough to pass failed students rather then admit they failed to educate them. These same institutions will lobby to have the standards reduced or will ask for exemptions or something. They will not improve themselves because if they would they would have done so already. The problem is not a lack of data. The data only serves to embarrass or make obvious common knowledge.

4. As to common core being good for federal bureaucrats to calculate education statistics... I'm sure it is great at that. However, the point of an education system is not to make the jobs of superfluous government departments easier to administer.

Look, I do appreciate your problem and I think we should do things to make the system easier to understand if not manage. However, you must have some humility that neither you nor the people in Washington have a one size fits all solution to what is a very complex system. Every school is going to be different and is going to need to teach its students differently. Do you think the east side of Los Angeles is the same as North Dakota? Many of the kids in east LA don't even speak english. And then compare that to the Hawaiian kids. All these kids currently get different versions of US and world history because the US is a big place and their region of the country has its own history. How much Hawaiian history do kids in Maine get? The Hawaiian kids get a lot of it. They learn about the old Hawaiian kings in addition to US history. Is that in your common core test? I doubt it. But its important for those kids to know that for their part of the country. And there are versions of that everywhere.

Your system's only real virtue is that its easier to graph. But its arrogant, inflexible, simplistic, wastes too much time on machine graded tests, and assumes what is an extremely diverse education system can be centralized.

Here you say you do this for a living and I know nothing. I would say you probably know a lot and are very good at a job that is at best ancillary to the actual task of education.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

I disagree. You should be able to vote on spending issues in your regular elections. But as to elections and administration of the school itself... that should be between the parents and the teachers.

As to your money, I do appreciate your rights here. I would point out however that if you do not provide for a basic education for new citizens you will be very quickly surrounded by ignorant barbarians. And everything you think that matters will be taken from you as the society devolves into a third world country.

You pay for education for the same reason you pay for a military. To keep what you have. The military fights enemies without... and the education system takes the new blood and indoctrinates it into the society. The parents are likewise responsible for a large portion of this indoctrination. But the schools serve an important role in this process. The schools teach the new ones to read, to write, to do math, grant a basic understanding of science, explain the political system, explain the economic system, give a background in our civilization's history, etc.

Deny children this and you'll be dealing with squabbling 40 year old children in no time that know nothing.

As it is... the education system is already buckling under the stresses. Don't kick its feet out from under it... we all burn if that happens.

Re: So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

Actually most federal agencies have armed tactical units these days.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2...

here is the epa doing the same thing:
http://www.naturalnews.com/042...

They all have armed divisions and if you ignore them they will send men with guns to sort you out.

This answers your question. They do have weapons.

Next question?

Re: So long as it is consential

[Tom]

The mayor of my city and the parliament of my country I can elect and their doings are at least partially subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, their primary interest is staying in power, which means at least partially pleasing me.

The CEO of Big Bad Corporation I cannot elect nor scrutinize. His primary interest is $$$, which means if he can earn a buck by fucking me over, he's almost legally required to do so.

For all the faults in our current political system, I'd rather have the former have the guns. And I'd rather have the government control corporations instead of the other way around. In fact, much of what's fucked up with our politics is that corporations have too much influence on politics.

Re:So long as it is consential

[profplump]

Exactly what makes parents more qualified to make educational decisions than other people? I know they *feel* more qualified, but it's unclear to me that feeling is justified by any observable fact. Parents have a certain perspective to offer, but no particular expertise (at least not as a group), and certainly not the only valid perspective. What you're suggesting is essentially self-regulation -- which we know from other areas creates inherent conflicts of interest and readily ignores broader societal goals. Why do you think it will work here when it clearly does not in other places?

Re:So long as it is consential

[profplump]

The smaller government is the less harm it can do. But also less good. You can argue about where the point of balance should be, but to argue that smaller is always better assumes that government can do nothing worthwhile. That is not a widely held assumption, so you must support it if you want to convince anyone of theories that assume it.

Re:So long as it is consential

[sensei moreh]

I have to agree. I, personally, would not trust parents (as a group) with the job of approving education curricula or methodologies without some type of appropriate outcomes measurements (i.e., standardized tests). Given the backlashes to both No Child Left Behind and Common Core (not to imply that either program is the be-all, end-all it claims to be), and the difficulty in finding one or more enlightened despots to determine appropriate standards, I'm at a loss here.

Re: So long as it is consential

[george14215]

Look up Smedley Butler. "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Corporations have but one purpose, to generate profit for their investors with typically little regard for ethics or morality. Government, while often times corrupt, is ostensibly set up for the benefit of the people.

Re:So long as it is consential

[Karmashock]

No one has more of a right to determine the education of a child then the parent.

Are parents sometimes stupid? Sure. So is everyone. The difference is that typically no one cares about the child more then the parent. You don't care. The government doesn't care. The teacher doesn't care. You don't know the child's name. You won't lose any sleep over their success or failure.

The parents typically care a great deal. What is more, no one has more of a right then them.

First... they have custody. Not you. Not the government. They are their legal guardians which means they are legally allowed to make decisions for the child. Indifferent to the ethics which I think should be clear to you, this is simply the law. The argument should end at that point.

Second, they are financially taking care of the child. Sure, some kids are on welfare but most are not. That financial support provided by the parent gives them additional rights.

I really see no reason to go beyond that. You have no grounds to tell them otherwise in that situation. Could parents encourage bad education for the children? Sure... but then they suffer the consequences of doing that. No one will be hurt more by that then the children and the parents. Most people and groups of people will avoid practices that harm their children.

Here someone is going to bring up the religious fundamentalists and evolution. I would counter that doesn't really do that much damage. It would only potentially harm students that went into biology or geology. You can be a genius chemist, physicist, mathematician, etc and yet be a devout believer in creationism. Really the issue is over hyped and not terribly important. It would only harm biological students or possibly medical doctors. And even in those situations, we can assume their college educations would give them more then enough background to make up for a few bad science classes in high school.

Re: So long as it is consential

[Druegan]

No, we don't.

That's just what conservatives like to paint us as saying as a way to "demonize the enemy".

What some of us argue, at the very least, is that a largely autocratic economic system and a purportedly democratic political system are incompatible. If you have the former, and are attempting the latter, you will get the inevitable "government of oligarch ass-kissers" like we currently see in Washington DC. "For the people" becomes "Fuck the people".

The Progressives I know are not particular fans of "Big Government".. especailly governments as corrupt and incompentent and prone to abuses as ours.. They lobby for social justice, economic justice, educational opportunites, employment, political reform, environmental protections... You know.. the idea of the common people actually getting some kind of *value* for the taxes they pay government, and not just seeing it all get pissed into some billionaire's bank account.

Some of us view "Big Corporations" as "the enemy" because we see the massive abuses they facilitate, from poisoning the drinking water to empoverishment to political corruption. We see billions wasted giving tax breaks to insanely profitable mega-corporations because they have effectively *bought* Congress. We see massive and flagrant violations of law that destroy lives, cause economic hardship for millions, and essentially "skim off the top" of most transactions made anywhere in the world, and nothing get done to stop it.

A few, vocal, weak willed "progressive" puppets of the Corporate Oligarchs that run the Media Machine perhaps think "Big Government" is the answer... but no.. Most of us know we have to dig deeper to address our problems. Just like most Conservatives know there really *is* more to life than "Guns, Jesus, and Fuck those Immigrants!"

Re: So long as it is consential

[david_thornley]

Actually, I think many progressives want a balance between government and economic power, and think it's switched too much to the corporations. The people who put blind faith in government scare me, as do people who put blind faith in the corporations.

Re: So long as it is consential

[ultranova]

Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.

They don't have to. All the resources of the world and nature's bounty are claimed by them, and those claims are backed by violence, paid for by your taxes of course. So you get to choose between giving them your money, or dying in the dark.

Re: So long as it is consential

[Stuarticus]

And they always deal in absolutes.

should be an interesting history of computers

[Anonymous Coward]

The first computers in the world were invented by Microsoft in 1981 to run the revolutionary MS-DOS operating system, before which humanity had no computers at all. In 1985 Microsoft invented the graphical user interface and the mouse. Microsoft Windows was the most secure operating system in the world, and also the easiest to use with the introduction of the revolutionary Microsoft Bob.

Microsoft would go on to invent the Internet, graciously allowing rival companies to establish a presence on Microsoft's new network. Microsoft created the most loved user interface in the world with the exciting new Windows 8 Aero.

You can purchase exciting new Microsoft products at the following participating retailers near you!

Re:should be an interesting history of computers

[phrostie]

and the digital text books will have banner adds that you'll need to click on before being able to read the "History".

Re:should be an interesting history of computers

[Bing Tsher E]

You misspelled 'Apple' in above paragraph.

I am hoping, though, based on the rising buzz, that I've mentioned 'Apple' here for the last time they'll be mentioned on Slashdot for a week. There's a whole shitsludge avalanche of Apple hype sliding out this coming week that badly needs to be contained.

Re:should be an interesting history of computers

[volmtech]

Just last night I downloaded an anatomy textbook from cnx.org, an education site partially funded by the Gates foundation. The PDF of the 1337 page textbook is clear and bright. Free beats several hundred dollars and not an ad in sight.

Re:should be an interesting history of computers

[westlake]

The first computers in the world were invented by Microsoft in 1981 to run the revolutionary MSDOS operating system, before which humanity had no computers at all.

MS DOS was revolutionary because it sold to all comers at 1/5 the list price of CP/M 86.

The PC built from modular components sold at mass market prices and which snap into place like LEGO blocks begins here.

-----

IBM introduced the IBM Personal Computer in 1981 and followed it with increasingly capable models: the XT in 1983 and the AT in 1984. The success of these computers cut deeply into the market for S-100 bus products.
As the IBM PC products captured the low-end of the market, S-100 machines moved up-scale to more powerful OEM and multiuser systems. However throughout the 1980s the market for S-100 bus machines for the hobbyist, for personal use, and even for small business was on the decline.
By 1994 the S-100 bus industry had contracted sufficiently that the IEEE did not see a need to continue supporting the IEEE-696 standard. The IEEE-696 standard was retired on June 14, 1994. S-100 bus

Re:should be an interesting history of computers

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll give you the first taste for free, then you have to pay", say every drug dealer everywhere.

"He's really not an expert"

[emgarf]

No, he's just somebody that at least occasionally tries to improve the world instead of just commenting on other people's efforts.

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[suss]

Mao thought he was improving the world and so were a lot of other people...

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[Zontar The Mindless]

A factual statement followed by a mischaracterisation followed by a statement that really doesn't mean anything but is supposed to sound like it does.

And we're supposed to accept this rather poor attempt at being clever in lieu of logic.

Yes sir, we are indeed on Slashdot.

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[Nemyst]

Mao made the calls himself, with a complete lack of understanding of what the fuck he was doing. Gates largely funds projects he finds interesting; he doesn't have absolute control over the entire country's government and he doesn't actually run the stuff he doesn't understand.

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[Kohath]

He should stick to curing diseases like malaria. Schools are too mixed up with politics, money, and government control of peoples' lives.

If he wants to help with education, he should fund scholarships so more parents could send their kids to a school of their choice.

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[snsh]

When it comes to history, experts are just people convinced their version of the facts is better than everyone else's versions.

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[Nimey]

Know who else thought he was improving the world? HITLER.

Good trolls are less obvious. Try harder.

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[terjeber]

If only the fanatics with guns could be replaced with developers somehow

On /., aren't fanatics with guns and developers mostly synonymous? Feels like it if you have the audacity to claim Microsoft is not All Evil (TM).

Re:"He's really not an expert"

[terjeber]

he should fund scholarships

Like this one?

More "1%" crap?

[mi]

Because Bill Gates's history would be very different from somebody else's who wasn't worth $50-60 billion.

Huh? Why? Is this the "there are two Americas" crap again? Why would "his" history of America be different from that of any of the rest of us?

"He just happens to be a guy that watched a DVD and thought it was a good idea and had a bunch of money to fund it."

Ok, so he did not even devise the course himself — he just liked what he saw. I don't particularly like the guy — and do remember his company's anti-competitive practices of the past. But none of these critics do. So why is his wealth being held against him?

Re:More "1%" crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is his wealth being held against him?

Bill Gates' wealth is the only reason that he has power.

Re:More "1%" crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is his wealth being held against him?

Because he chose to amass it, he chose the methods he used to amass it, he chose to keep much of it for himself, and he chooses how to invest the remainder.

A person can be judged by their actions, you know. And the judgment will affect the context in which further actions by that person should be judged. Why don't we let foxes into hen-houses?

Re:More "1%" crap?

[denzacar]

From TFA:

Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University who has been a vocal critic of Gates, put even it more starkly: âoeWhen I think about history, I think about different perspectives, clashing points of view. I wonder how Bill Gates would treat the robber barons. I wonder how Bill Gates would deal with issues of extremes of wealth and poverty.â (The Big History Project doesnâ(TM)t mention robber barons, but it does briefly address unequal distribution of resources.) Ravitch continued: âoeIt begins to be a question of: Is this Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history? And should it be labeled âBill Gatesâ(TM)s Historyâ(TM)? Because Bill Gatesâ(TM)s history would be very different from somebody elseâ(TM)s who wasnâ(TM)t worth $50-60 billion.â (Gatesâ(TM)s estimated net worth is approximately $80 billion.)

It's a case of the "Slashdot approach" to topic being discussed.
Not reading TFA (TFC? TFH?) and complaining about something which may or may not be there, based on personal prejudice.

I.e. Questioning how will "Gates History", which it is not, deal with sensitive issues regarding money and wealth acquisition, implying a conflict of interest.
For no reason other than Bill Gates' involvement with the course.
Because Bill Gates is apparently Scrooge McDuck even in the minds of highly educated people like "Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University".
A caricature of a human/duck hybrid, who loves only money, and is willing to rewrite history in order to please money gods.

Re:More "1%" crap?

[mi]

Bill Gates' wealth is the only reason that he has power.

That's a pretty good reason in my opinion. It is certainly a better reason, than that of the various nobility of the past — who have always been deemed "better". Bill Gates' made money by doing something other people wanted to buy — rather than by conquest. Yet, somehow, I suspect, if it were, say, the Queen of England — or, better yet, one of the adorable princ(ess)es) — who offered to subsidize the history class, there would've been fewer objections than Bill Gates is eliciting.

Re:More "1%" crap?

[mi]

Because he chose to amass it

Everybody "chooses" it — few people succeed.

the methods he used to amass it

His critics are perfectly ignorant of the anti-competitive practices in Microsoft's past. They would've been just as loud against Warren Buffet or, dare I mention their names, the Koch brothers.

Why don't we let foxes into hen-houses?

You are implying, Bill Gates is trying to rewrite history of the world somehow. How would he rewrite it, and what evidence to have of his plans to do it? According to what we are reading here, it is only the method of teaching history — not the content — that he wants changed...

Re:More "1%" crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Bill Gates' made money by doing something other people wanted to buy — rather than by conquest. ...

He made a lot of that money by forcing people to buy stuff they didn't want or need, remember the "Windows tax" (this is only scratching the surface at how sales were forced upon organizations)? I was force to buy several copies of M$ OS's when purchasing a computer that I never wanted or used.

You know, acting as a monopolist is in fact the commercial equivalent of conquest!

Re:More "1%" crap?

[Jack Griffin]

Let's just put this into perspective since you may be the very person Bill is targeting with his improvement of historical education. Railroading you into buying some extra software license has to rank up there as the most pacified rise to power in human history. Compared with say murder, torture or genocide which is pretty much how everyone else got there. Given those options, I'll choose Bill's way every time.

Re:More "1%" crap?

[terjeber]

He made a lot of that money by forcing people to buy stuff they didn't want or need, remember the "Windows tax"

Nonsense. The number of people who didn't want DOS/Windows with their computer when they bought it is numbered in the single digits or below percent. He didn't increase his fortune in any measurable way by "forcing" the unwilling to buy his OS.

Re:More "1%" crap?

[david_thornley]

I don't think anybody's claiming that it's worse for a successful businessman to influence things than a hereditary aristocrat. Letting individuals or collections of people with unusual personal power determine education is, however, dangerous in itself.

Where's the content?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "intro video" is a slick, emotionally-appealing, and almost contentless advertising piece. Just about the only thing we're told about the Big History course is that "it uses the timeline", and that Bill Gates thinks "it's the best course ever"!

It's a typical corporate sales technique--you're not told any details that would allow you to independently evaluate the product, you're just made to feel that you need it.

Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[charronia]

If not, then why would it matter that a rich guy decides to teach people history?

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[Rockoon]

Jealousy trumps the concept of right and wrong.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[hedleyroos]

I watched the Big History TV series and was unimpressed. They attempt to make connections between items spanning billions of years eg. Kennedy was killed by a bullet, lead is formed in supernovas. It feels as if the episodes suffer from ADD. Not enough time is spent on a single subject.

What exactly is wrong with the way history is teached? Or is old Bill trying to rewrite a few bits to fit his vision?

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[houghi]

Nothing more so then in teaching history.

When I was 15 I moved from one country to another in Europe with (almost obviously) overlapping history. It amazed me how differently the outcome of wars would be explained, depending on what side they wanted to let me learn.

Even though all facts were correct, the emphesis on what happend was greatly different. Often it was more about battles and not so much wars.

What it learned me was that I should ALWAYS doubt what is being said and get information from at least both sides.

So much so that I wonder if the story of LotR is not so much that the winners wanted segregation (of hobbits, elves and other races) where the losers were fighting for unity and equality and were just represented in an evil way by the winners.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[denzacar]

What exactly is wrong with the way history is teached?

It is an attempt to use history as a narrative glue and a conduit for connection of other subjects taught in school, instead of teaching math and physics and chemistry and biology and languages as if there is no interconnection.
Same goes for world cultures, geography, how technology and social trends influenced history etc.

Hopefully, that would lead to kids coming out of high school or even elementary school realizing that global cultures are all part of a greater human culture.
And that those same rules that work in elementary sciences also apply to EVERYTHING ELSE.

Instead of teaching a single version of history through rote memorization, into which any history course taught in elementary/high school education eventually devolves.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[silfen]

how technology and social trends influenced history etc.

Trouble is that nobody has valid scientific theories of "how technology and social trends influenced history"; all we have is ideologically and politically motivated storytelling.

And that those same rules that work in elementary sciences also apply to EVERYTHING ELSE.

Unfortunately, they don't. In the elementary sciences, you can verify the truth of many statements by direct, independent experimentation. You can't do that in history or many other fields.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[denzacar]

Trouble is that nobody has valid scientific theories of "how technology and social trends influenced history"

No crusades or Jihad in your version of history?
No millions dead due to brand spanking new killing toys of WWI and WWII?
No Holocaust?
How about agriculture, cities, steel, bronze, stone? None of that influenced history?
Industrial revolution had no effect on history?
How about the age of exploration? That needed some significant tech advancements to work as it did?
Colonization? Nope?
How about language? That's a big one among the techs. Shaped the fuck out of history. Thousands died even in the Bible (both tech AND a social trend) on account of how they pronounced shibboleth.

       

In the elementary sciences, you can verify the truth of many statements by direct, independent experimentation. You can't do that in history or many other fields.

So... nobody knows how Lincoln or JFK died or what killed all those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
No evidence ever existed. All we know is they died.
Same way we can't tell what people wore or ate or how they lived in the past.

Not only is it completely impossible to examine historical artifacts and records, it is also completely impossible that the same "elementary" forces worked the same way a year ago as they do now.
Clearly, the force that killed JFK was not anything like... say... a metal projectile ejected from a machined piece of steel, propelled by the same chemical reactions and forces that might fire a bullet from a gun today.

After all, who's to say they even had chemistry back then? Those ancient tales are unverifiable today just like the stories of the Bible.
Maybe a dragon ate him? Who knows... You simply can't verify the truth in history or many other fields.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[silfen]

Are you so stupid that you don't understand the difference between statements of the form "millions of people died" and "millions of people died because of imperialism/fascism/communism/monarchy/..."?

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Yes, which is why one shouldn't have debates with people like you.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[DNS-and-BIND]

What the fuck? You do know that Middle-Earth was a fictional world, right? You can't apply real-world thinking to it. If Sauron or Saruman had won the war, the Free Peoples would have been exterminated or enslaved. Hell, the book shows clearly what was in store when Saruman conquers the Shire at the end. WTF? Orcs fighting for unity and equality?

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[karuna]

Indeed, Saruman's attempts of industrialization in the LotR could indeed be viewed as an attempt of progress. Yes, it caused destruction of nature and pollution. But imagine if the industrial revolution hadn't happened and we would still be living in medieval world with primitive technologies and slow communications?

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[houghi]

You have to start thinking that the book is just one side of the sory. So the reference of what would happen is just again telling the same side.

As if you are watching only Fox News and use "The O;Reilly Factor" for opinion on what might have happend.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Uh, no, it's a work of fiction. The whole thing only exists in Tolkien's head. Orcs are elves corrupted by dark magic, they only exist to destroy life. Elves preserve life by...yaknow what? Fuck it. You can go read and get an education. It's frightening to realize that people like you think you can apply real-life like this to fairy tales. And, of course, the totally out-of-left-field reference to Fox News, which shows you're engaging in psychological projection.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[Jack Griffin]

You are missing the point. Everything is relative, and LoTR the makes a good analogy. You naturally take the Hobbits as being good, and Orcs being bad,yet forget that the story is told from the point of view of the Hobbits because they were the victors. Just like we think we are right, and Middle Eastern "Terrorists" are bad. They think they are right and you and your family are Orcs rampaging across Middle Earth/East while they struggle for "freedom". If you pay closer attention to fiction, you find most of the good authors are actually telling an alternative story. Animal Farm is not really about Animals you know...

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Again, where the hell did the reference to the Middle East come from? You thinking about that all the time, right? Middle Earth is different, despite having the same first name. Read the goddamn Silmarillion, it quite clearly lays out the cosmology of Arda and says who good and bad are. Hint: the side that bombs schools to keep girls from being educated isn't the "good" side. Oh, and I'd be careful quoting Animal Farm - the whole novel is a direct parody of what happens to a country when communists take over.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[Jack Griffin]

The current Middle East situation, which has been going on for centuries is an example of how history can be re-written depending on who won. This was the analogy I believe the other poster was making about LoTR. Don't get bogged down in the analogies, the main point here is that the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is only who wins the war. We think ISIS are terrorists, Hobbits thought Orcs were terrorists, The British Monarchy though Americans were terrorists at one point in time. If you are learning history, this is probably the most important lesson to begin with.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[strikethree]

So much so that I wonder if the story of LotR is not so much that the winners wanted segregation (of hobbits, elves and other races) where the losers were fighting for unity and equality and were just represented in an evil way by the winners.

Good and evil can be discerned by their actions.

Saruman had his orcs take Meriadoc and Pippin against their will to Orthanc.

Sauron had the Nazgul attacking, killing, and otherwise causing mayhem in his name trying to retrieve his ring from Bilbo/Frodo.

Gandalf and Elrond asked for volunteers to go on a dangerous journey to destroy the One Ring.

I think the determination of good and evil is very clear. If you are forcing your will upon others, you are likely to be evil. If you are not forcing your will upon others, you are likely to be good. Of course, those two rules are generalizations: You would be forcing your will against someone if you are trying to stop them from murdering someone... but really, this is just a higher level rule: You can enforce your will upon someone to stop them from enforcing their will upon someone else.

I am unsure where you received the segregation idea from: The various races seemed to be welcome amongst the other races as long as they were peaceful. Yes, the wood elves were very reclusive, so much so that they imprisoned the dwarves, but even this is not so simple: There was a long history of contentious behavior. Dwarves were welcomed in Rivendell. Humans were welcomed in Bree. Dwarves and Elves were welcome in Minis Tirith (other than that Denethor had been manipulated by Sauron).

The unity and equality of which you speak did not seem so unified and equal to me. The most powerful creatures were given authority and whips to enforce discipline amongst the weaker creatures. Furthermore, the situation at Cirith Ungol (near Shelob's lair) amongst the various Orcs proved that the only reason there appeared to be any unity is because of the power of Sauron and the only purpose of that unity was to dominate Middle Earth.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[terjeber]

It isn't "his", it is a project run by other people that he likes. The project has no Bill Gates stuff in it, only his money.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[terjeber]

Yes we are, none. It's not his project.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[david_thornley]

After Saruman's defeat, the men who had followed him were required to give hostages and swear not to cross some river or other in arms. That appears to me to be enforcing Theoden's will. Faramir was trying to cause the same sort of mayhem in Ithilien as you accuse the Nazgul of, and much of that was against fellow humans (the ambush we see involves men of the south). Merry and Pippin got much the same sort of treatment that Gollum did.

The accounts give set the "good guy" actions in the best light, and the "bad guy" actions in the worst. Saruman's attempts to industrialize result in "deviltry", and everything he built is drowned in the Isen. (Heck, Saruman wasn't any worse than lots of historical industrialists.) The orcs are presented as irredeemably evil by their very nature. (In contrast, elves, while usually good, weren't always. Consider Feanor.)

Since this is a work of fiction, the roles of good and evil are pre-assigned, and the entire story is written from that basis. I could write a counter-narrative that really didn't conflict with Tolkien's all that much, which would put the forces of industrialism stumbling badly on their way to making a new society, with influence from the southern democracies, before being wiped out by the autocratic reactionaries of the West.

Re:Is the history he teaches incorrect?

[strikethree]

I could write a counter-narrative that really didn't conflict with Tolkien's all that much, which would put the forces of industrialism stumbling badly on their way to making a new society, with influence from the southern democracies, before being wiped out by the autocratic reactionaries of the West.

Hm. Your ideas are intriguing. I still can not get over the lack of Free Will from Sauron's and Saruman's armies. If there were any evidence of liberty and/or freedom at all, I could easily swallow such a reversal as you are proposing. Very interesting.

Just a product

[Dishwasha]

Looking at the website this seems more like a product Gates should be selling rather than something useful for the classroom.

Re:I don't like to trust people who write "Gates's

[Anonymous Coward]

That is how Gollum writes itssss, my precious.

The trouble with billionaires

[mbone]

'Frankly, in the eyes of the critics, he's really not an expert. He just happens to be a guy that watched a DVD and thought it was a good idea and had a bunch of money to fund it."

That is exactly and precisely why it is not a good idea to let billionaires run your country. Having had dealings with billionaires, I can also say that he left out one thing, that such a person is almost inevitably going to be surrounded by a bunch of people (including in the press) who think that any idea he has is worthy of adulation.

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[StripedCow]

The argument is completely ad hominem. Let me do an ad hominem too: why would I still take you seriously if you can't even follow the simple rules of logic?

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[Livius]

He didn't make an ad hominem, he made a conclusion based on observation.

Perhaps his sample size was not statistically significant, but that's a different issue.

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[silfen]

And that is different from professors at elite universities... how?

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[phantomfive]

As opposed to letting the country be run by politicians, who are also surrounded by sycophants?

Hmmmm, I think we have a problem here.

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[onix]

Or put yet another way, put a bunch of billionaires in the same room and see if they come to any consensus on policy. They always act individually. Put Buffett, the Koch brothers, the Walton's, and Gates in the same room. Eventually one of them will pull out a dagger and kill the others. Just an experiment in hubris. Blame also society for giving them a pedestal to speak on.

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[Jack Griffin]

This is true for most people. Last time I checked, poor people don't have the best record of not killing each other either. But I'd much rather have some one in charge who knows how to succeed, than someone who doesn't...

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[onix]

Funny, this is exactly the point I'm making. That mentality. Monetary success does not equate to being omniscient. Some would argue the Koch brothers are common thugs, Michael Jordan with his inordinate wealth knows little about anything else aside from basketball, a "successful" gangster does makes him an expert on a certain type of sociopathic behavior, but not much else.

Re:The trouble with billionaires

[terjeber]

why would I still take you seriously if you can't even follow the simple rules of logic?

That is actually not ad hominem since you include a property that is probably a real factor in your evaluation of his level of seriousness.

Ad hominem would be: why would I still take you seriously if you have red hair?

Big History different from History

[Livius]

Big History is not really a branch of History, it's its own subject, which is interesting and rich and a worthwhile contribution to someone's education. Generally it studies trends, whether cosmological, evolutionary, economic, or political, that span times greater than a human lifespan. It's not the usual meaning of history, and it can't replace history.

It's actually a good way to teach science, because a lot of science gets put into a historical narrative and tied to the real world.

That depends...

[Dcnjoe60]

Does Bill Gates have any credentials to show he is an expert in the field of teaching history?

Re:That depends...

[MisterSquid]

Does Bill Gates have any credentials to show he is an expert in the field of teaching history?

Gates doesn't even have an undergraduate degree.

Nothing he's so far achieved among his many considerable accomplishments leads me to believe he understands anything about the requirements of rigorous intellectual thought or well-constructed rational arguments.

Re:That depends...

[onix]

Degree or otherwise, as so many men are self-taught with a better connected-ness to society and reality, I agree of Gates' complete and abject deficit in critical reasoning that at a core lacks a guiding moral compass. It's hard to take anything seriously from a man who "needs" a 66,000 sq. ft house. Contrast this childishness to persuasions of Warren Buffett or, even the Koch brothers. Morality aside, they are far more shrewd and centered in their purpose and beliefs.

Complex question. Simple answer

[DingerX]

If you made computer science a mandatory subject, and then required that the students be taught to type in, line-by-line, the source code for libreoffice, then what was taught in the course would not be incorrect. It wouldn't be computer science either.

The counterargument here is that "Big HIstory" focuses on a grand narrative without approaching the methodologies used to construct such narratives. Historians try to teach methods, and specifically ways to approach texts and to construct arguments from them about the past; they try to get students to look at histories not as "correct" or "incorrect" (although they can also be that), but rather as someone's attempt at interpreting the data in a way relevant to us.

The fact that most High School history classes suck and feature some nutcase rattling on about pet theories and spewing lists of crap for students to memorize has nothing to do with what history teachers want, and everything to do with the fact that "Coach of a High School Sports Team" is not a full-time job, and most schools have more coaches than gym teachers. So they gotta teach something, and that education degree means they can teach whatever they want; a Ph.D. in history is not so flexible, and (thanks to union rules) costs cash-strapped schools more money to hire.

Re:Complex question. Simple answer

[Zontar The Mindless]

In which parallel universe is it that PhDs bother with teaching at the high school level?

Re:Complex question. Simple answer

[DingerX]

Uhh... Europe? I know quite a few humanities Ph.D.s who are teaching in high schools out here.

Seriously, when I was in a public HS, we had high school teachers with Ph.D.s, in the STEM classes (well, okay, not the TE part). In the humanities, we had people with M.S. in education, and no clue what's going on. You want to know why history sucks in High School? The teachers were those students who got straight Cs in history at the university and an education degree.

Hell ya

[Snotnose]

Anything is better than the way I was taught history. In high school it was nothing but names and dates. No context, no motivation, nothing.

About 30 years ago there was a show called Our World on TV. It gave context, explained motivations, and in general made history pretty damned interesting. Too bad the show only lasted 1 season.

Then I had a college history class. Yep, back to names and dates and not much else.

History can be interesting, the way it's taught in school is a sham.

Re:Hell ya

[MightyYar]

I think you are on to something. There may be no scientific evidence that Big History is any better, but there is no scientific basis to the current teaching of history, either.

Re:Hell ya

[LifesABeach]

Maybe Gates could publicly demonstrate his teaching skills by teaching a dog to roll over?

Re:Hell ya

[Tom]

History can be interesting, the way it's taught in [my] school is a sham.

FTFY.

I had a great history teacher, who taught us about the difference between cause and occasion, about webs of alliances and interdependences and how they create unintended consequences, and who made us understand why names and dates are important (to figure out the proper order of things and the connections between the people responsible).

If your teacher sucked, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

And if you want to refresh, find "Crash Course World History" on YouTube.

Stallman can teach IP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowthatwould change the world for the better!

Make people a bit cranky though!

Different approach, not different subject matter

[tomhath]

As I understand it, he's a fan of tying different disciplines together into one interconnected timeline (astronomy, geology, paleontology, anthropology, etc). It doesn't appear that he wants to bias the content so much as come up with a better/more interesting way of presenting it. Seems like a worthwhile goal to me.

Crash course

[alexandrujuncu]

Have you seen this https://www.youtube.com/playli... ?

Re:Crash course

[denzacar]

Judging from the titles, nothing ever happened in South America. Until Columbus at least.
And almost nothing ever happened in Asia, Africa, Australia, India... at least not until Western Civilizations got involved.
"Hey there aboriginal natives! You've just been discovered. Rejoice!"

Re:Crash course

[alexandrujuncu]

Actually, if you watch the series, you will notice that it tries to be non-Eurocentric (or US centric). That's one of the things I like about it, it tries to present an actual WORLD history.

Re:Crash course

[denzacar]

Haven't watched it. That's why I said "judging from the titles".

And maybe it does try to not be Western Civilization centric... but it ultimately fails.
You can tell by looking at the nouns.

Alexander the Great and American and French Revolutions get "name drops" but no Gandhi, any of Chinese or Japanese emperors OR any of Russian revolutions.
We'll just bundle those under larger historical movements.
Like we didn't bundle Alexander with the rest of the Ancient Greece or the American Revolution with colonialism.
Samurai, Daimyo - and Matthew Perry. Seriously? Chandler gets his own chapter?

But you can tell something else from the structuring of the lessons. Where the course actually goes wrong in its presentation of WORLD history.
It assembles historical events chronologically and culturally.
Instead of geographically on a chronological axis.

History happened in a time and place, with human actors within that time and place.
It did NOT happen around messianic human actors who changed history because they were illegitimate children of deities or because they were secretly aliens from the future.

So we get a history told around "major events", which inevitably leads to a history as told by the ultimate winners of those events.
I.e. Colonial and other empires.
Fuck the native populations of the colonies. They got little or no history anyway.

So, instead of intermingling, conflicting and allied human cultures, we get BIG and small cultures.
Winners and losers. And those relegated to a footnote somewhere.
19th century idea of the world all over again.
A world of glorious US and inferior THEM.

Seriously, Chandler gets as much attention as the Mongols or the WWII.

Re:Fucking die Gates

[just_a_monkey]

One place for everyone and everyone in their place. Now, if we only could make tenure inheritable also...

Re:I don't like to trust people who write "Gates's

[Half-pint HAL]

And three times in the same sentence! (Legal, but annoying.)

That would be bigotry then.

I mean, heck, you even admit it's not wrong, and still say it's a bad thing.

Re:Hell no

[Half-pint HAL]

In this case, though, he's not wrong. History is too often taught as a series of snapshots of a given time. But you cannot understand the changes of borders in continental Europe without a deep understanding of geography -- you need to understand river systems as the "motorways", and the shift of river systems to being seen as "defensible borders". It's this whole system that leads to the dissatisfaction with cross-border ethnic groups like the Basques and the Catalans. The France-Spain border is now defined by mountains, but when travel by sea was quicker than travel by land, a mountain range was inconsequential to a people with good access to coastlines. And just try to consider Caesar's campaigns and the differences between transalpine and cisalpine Gaul without understanding the Alps and the Massif Central.

This is not Gates's history class, it's a university professor's history class.

Did Lenin say this...

[Anonymous Coward]

He who controls the past controls the future.

I don't want his version.

Depends

[RogueWarrior65]

If it's taught in the style of Connections, I'm all for it. I absolutely loathed traditional history teaching methods until I saw that series.
If it's revisionist, then screw that noise.

Re:Hell no

[ColdWetDog]

You are better off reading the Baroque Cycle. It's much more entertaining and even partially correct.

the 1% trying to rewrite history

[silfen]

And by "the 1%" I mean academics like Diane Ravitch. Not only are academics like that among the wealthy and powerful in this country, far removed from the concerns of the ordinary citizens, they still have a chip on their shoulder because they look at the top 0.001% and think that they are being treated unfairly.

As for Gates, he isn't in the 1%, he is in a class of its own. He has so much money and power that I doubt he is motivated by acquiring more. His history is unlikely going to be very good, but it's probably no worse than the ideologically motivated trash that is usually being used in schools.

Re:the 1% trying to rewrite history

[LifesABeach]

The man has more money than he can spend, ever. Triple the number of UC's, and UofC's in California. More good would come from that than any lesson his minons could ever cut and paste together.

Re:the 1% trying to rewrite history

[crunchygranola]

Amazing how people think there's an amount of money beyond which you can't spend.

I could spend $80 billion in a few years (a decade at most). I'll have islands (perhaps Ireland itself :) that I'll own...

That is called real estate investing. It is not spending. You still have the original asset in a different form.

Re:the 1% trying to rewrite history

[Jack Griffin]

Not sure why you think his history won't be good. All the egos that got squashed with his rise will be forgotten in time. If his plan is to genuinely improve the lives of others, with programs such as eliminating polio then history will indeed be very good to him. Name any great person of history and I bet they did a lot worse things than Bill Gates ever did, all of which gets forgotten. If your version of evil is overpriced software licensing then you have lived a very privileged life.

Re:the 1% trying to rewrite history

[silfen]

Not sure why you think his history won't be good

Because TFA tells us what it's about, and I don't think that approach is any better than what we currently have.

If your version of evil is overpriced software licensing then you have lived a very privileged life.

How the hell does an attack Diane Ravitch as a hypocritical 1%-er translate into an accusation of Bill Gates being evil?

Big "history" or big science theories?

[AthanasiusKircher]

I do. 'Big History', to begin with, is so ugly a term

Part of the problem, I think, is that this isn't really "history" in the traditional sense (at least not as the word was understood before the past few decades or so). I'm NOT saying it shouldn't be taught in schools, mind you, but this whole project is based somewhat on a false premise.

"History," as the term traditionally means, has to do with a "story" (it's in the word, and in fact "history" and "story" used to basically mean the same thing in early English). That is, it's a narrative based on human accounts of events. Read the intro to the first major "history" in Western civilization if you don't believe me, Herodotus's "Histories" (where the word acquired its meaning) describes exactly this -- history is recounting events based on what humans have said and done, and trying to sort of causes and effects within that narrative.

This sort of "history" is what actual historians are trained in -- evaluating written documents and sources, as well as the role of artifacts, in creating a narrative about history. The word "prehistoric" only has meaning based on that meaning of "history" -- i.e., before written records exist, we have "prehistory." From TFA, it's clear that 90% of this course is about prehistoric events. Therefore, it's NOT a history course at all. Gates does NOT want to "remake the way history is taught" -- he wants to substitute a traditional course on history with a course on scientific theories about prehistory.

That's great -- and I'm all for interdisciplinary approaches and perhaps devoting more time to this stuff in schools. Maybe this course could take the place of part of a history elective and part of a science elective, or maybe it could serve as a kind of "bridge" between the disciplines, with science teachers starting it off, and history teachers swapping in once we get to modern anthropology and archaeology.

But let's be honest about what this is. It wouldn't make sense to have a person with "history" degree teach this course -- since the kind of methodologies and understanding have little to do with what historians do. The kinds of questions raised by scientific theories about prehistory and how we evaluate them are very different from the ways we critique human history narratives based on human records of events. Historians have some overlap with archaeologists in their methods, but very little overlap with anthropologists (particularly those who work on early humans), evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and cosmologists -- which are actually the main topics of this curriculum as it's advertised.

Re:Big "history" or big science theories?

[jedidiah]

The big problem with this is that it's spoon feeding people a narrative that they should be able to come up with by themselves. Students should be able to make these connections on their own. For that they need all of the relevant source material. Something like this is no substitute for the courses it seems to displace.

As something extra, it's a nice idea for those with added interest. However, public schools have enough of a problem just handling the basics. Expecting them to take on something extra just shows how woefully out of touch this billionaire is.

Besides, it's not even that radical. Public broadcasting has presented shows like this for decades.

Again, extra stuff that those with an interest can seek out on their own.

Common core in general (like the rich idiot behind it) seems to forget that we can't all be millionaires and rock stars. Some of us have to pump gas or pump stomachs. Public education should acknowledge that rather than try to deny it.

Re:Big "history" or big science theories?

[david_thornley]

Certainly, if I had the money and time, and knew enough languages, I could come up with my own ideas and connections based on the source material.

Have you looked at some of the source material? There's bureaucratic records here, letters there, filed and misfiled reports, etc. Nobody's going to learn anything significant going through the primary sources, unless they've got an extensive background in the field already.

Therefore, any education in history will rely heavily on secondary and tertiary sources, which means stuff somebody else has already selected and attached a story to. (It's very useful to read different history books to see where the stories are similar and differ.)

Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. we'll stop repeating it so much.

Gates Went to School! mostly.

[LifesABeach]

Well, lets look back. "Feed the Poor in Africa," with corn you can only get from Monsanto." Hell of a lesson.

Re:Hell no

[phantomfive]

FWIW it's the same with all his philanthropy. He's an utter moron. Just watch any talk with him on the same stage as Bill Clinton

I don't think you can call someone who got a perfect score on their SAT an utter moron. Misguided, or confused perhaps, but he's surely got some intelligence.

That's beside the point though, if you had the money, how would you use it philanthropically to make the world a better place?

Re:Next Week on Slashbeta: Gates Replaces Pope

[LifesABeach]

And after a few moments, niether would the Poodle.

Common Core was backed by Gates, too

[MellowBob]

and, if you've seen any YouTube video of Common Core math, know it absolutely sucks. Recently, there was a study that showed that rote memorization of simple math starts the process of higher though processes. I think Slashdot had a post on it.

Common Core is such a big carp at such a basic level that anyone who was a part of promoting or creating it should never doing anything with education again.

Re:Hell no

[knightghost]

Self absorbed, amoral, and rampantly driven... but he's no moron.

Current and future education is all about multidisciplinary integration. Even right now you need 2 bachelors or a master's degree to get anywhere, then ongoing learning spans many disciplines. As for history, how it is currently taught is worthless. Dates and names are irrelevant. The real value - Why and How - is not taught in any 100 level class.

Re:Fucking die Gates

[LifesABeach]

"Fuck the 1%?" Use a Condom, it's for your protection, not theirs.

Re:Hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you can call someone who got a perfect score on their SAT an utter moron.

Being a test monkey does NOT make someone intelligent.

I watched the video

[kelemvor4]

I watched the video and I learned:

1. Today we have roads
2. In 1995 we had electronics
3. in 1985 we had pedophiles
4. in 1975 we had the waffle house.

In short; the world hasn't improved much since 1975.

historyisaweapon.com

[bussdriver]

The powerful (winners) have been writing the mainstream history for a long time. In addition history is hardly even taught anymore; and the bit that is has been done poorly. They take great people like MLK and turn them into a phrase and an icon while it seems to be purposely removing the aspects that made them truly great. Summation is necessary, but it has been harmful either by accident or by intent - the academics seem to do a better job so one wonders how that gets lost on the mainstream education of the topics.

My public history education was quite poor. The only good aspect is we didn't have to memorize and recall dates; but we didn't do hardly any reading. Reading is the primary method (and best) for learning history... and any reading assignments are hacked around by technology for the simple homework (the homework/exam being the only modern means to force reading, it has been circumvented-- it's weaker than a 4 digit password.)

http://historyisaweapon.com/

Re:historyisaweapon.com

[silfen]

The powerful (winners) have been writing the mainstream history for a long time

True, if by "winners" you mean the large number of left-leaning academics and teachers; people who use education as a propaganda tool in order to increase their status and train students to advance their political objectives. They are complemented by a smaller contingent of right wing and Christian groups that are doing the same thing with a slightly different ideological bend, often in their own private schools.

From what you say, it appears you merely are with the first group of scoundrels, as opposed to the second group. Both the left and the right are vehemently opposed to doing what the school system should be doing: teach people skills and knowledge that empowers them to take control of their own lives.

Reading is the primary method (and best) for learning history...

True, reading is necessary, but it's not sufficient; if you select your reading to fit your world view, it's the same as merely reading propaganda that reinforces your preexisting prejudices.

Re:historyisaweapon.com

[silfen]

By the way, the books historyasaweapon.com suggests are about as propagandistic, misleading, and dishonest as they come, starting with "A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn. Zinn's book, incidentally, is widely read in schools today. You might as well be teaching young earth creationism, it's about as valid.

Re:historyisaweapon.com

[bussdriver]

I read Zinn's book on my own; my schools never mentioned anything remotely like it.

I have no objections to Zinn's book. It's not dry history and seems more like modern anthropology vs old anthropology. The academic criticisms sound similar. He uses actual people's words instead of feeling he has to censor them by just describing their actions on a timeline. You can't avoid being called propagandist if you put in the words of historically influential people! If you put in the opposition you are likely to still be criticized because the losers are likely to be less convincing (historically, they did lose after all.) It is a stark contrast to old dry history which has considerable bias of it's own. I don't know why people think pop history or official history as completely neutral. It NEVER has been. Zinn is no worse than the other historians; arguably, he is above average. Given his purpose was to compensate for existing bias he obviously went bias in another direction; rather than repeat what was already done or widely known. Zinn's work is supplemental as a result. I'm not for it being used alone.

PROPER history will give you some of Hitler's speeches, his words and his propaganda. Not a bunch of battle crap and events! Which is what we get. The holocaust is a rare exception in history education in that they don't just tell you a sterile summation - they are more like Zinn. You don't learn anything worthwhile from Nazi history (in school) except the more Zinn like coverage of the holocaust. We don't learn why the Nazi rose to power why they were were good at destroying democracy how that tiny goofy looking man convinced a relatively highly educated modern democracy to become what it did. An easily forgotten and never understood summary of events is all we got (that is, you couldn't understand with what was presented.) You don't LEARN anything, you get FACTS. It's only by LEARNING; that is by gaining an understanding, that you can stop from repeating past mistakes because history never repeats but is does rhyme. Nazi history is extremely biased (we won) but it should include some of their stuff and one wouldn't need to worry much because it's so vilified already. Also given how anti communist we are here you think we'd get SOMETHING but we have zero coverage; it's pure propaganda.

Zinn isn't invalid. It's a different style but it is not false. I want to know what/how/why, not just the institutional log book. A great many changes in society are bottom up; often by a minority group (like the revolutionary war.) Revolutionary war history is pretty good and more Zinn like in how it was covered; it is inspiring stuff as it should be, one should "get it" and if it was handled like other topics in history it would be considerably different. I remember what I had in school for it, I knew more at the time so I could see as a teen how it was censored and sterilized despite it being more Zinn like. It also had a great amount of "bias" from the founders own words, it also didn't present the British side at all. Like Ben Franklin's speech which ended the constitutional convention was censored in the textbook; they didn't mention Franklin's son was jailed as a traitor or why his son was a loyalist (along with a large portion of the population or that it was a small group that got the whole thing going etc.)

Zinn dispels the authoritarian bias in our history; which also rubs people the wrong way, the US is after all, quite an authoritarian society (if you don't like that tough, perhaps you should unload that word and accept it's real meaning.)

Re:historyisaweapon.com

[silfen]

I read Zinn's book on my own; my schools never mentioned anything remotely like it.

The fact remains that Zinn is popular high school and college reading because his political ideology is popular with teachers and intellectuals; his book is an example of what is being taught in mainstream schools, not an example of suppressed views of history.

Zinn isn't invalid. It's a different style but it is not false.

I am afraid I disagree. I think Zinn has crossed the line from biased history to propaganda in many places; that is, I think he knowingly omits facts and scholarship in order to fit and promote his political agenda.

Zinn dispels the authoritarian bias in our history; which also rubs people the wrong way, the US is after all, quite an authoritarian society (if you don't like that tough, perhaps you should unload that word and accept it's real meaning.)

I've actually lived in an authoritarian society and, sorry, you don't know what you are talking about.

Zinn was a well-meaning man (although there is a great deal of "doing well by doing good" in his populism) and he is worth reading and thinking about, critically. But, ultimately, his political views are wrong precisely because if followed, they lead to authoritarianism that is at least as bad as the authoritarianism he decries.

Re:historyisaweapon.com

[bussdriver]

His personal political views are separate from his work. Yes, even if they influence his work they are a separate matter. He may agree with the people he cites but putting their words in doesn't make his history work invalid. He doesn't lie or do the history wrong or even mislead but he does use the facts he chooses to collectively push central themes which are aligned to his opinions. That is no different than anybody else except that he is far more open about it; he doesn't hide it. People who disagree grasp at things to attack him; but the proper counter is to use history. His history is not invalid; now his opinions can be argued on that point but he is not sneaky like traditional history is under it's guise of being neutral or the modern technique of giving too much to weak positions (much like how the media gives equal time to crackpots under the guise of being fair.)

As far as omitting things-- that is a classic fallacy attack that is really hard to make actually stick. Anybody can be attacked for omission. I don't begrudge him for skipping things that are widely known or overly complicating matters-- which one can so easily do. At some point you have to edit for the space allotted. As far as big controversial matters, given how different most history is; I don't think he needs to waste space addressing things that are bound to be yelled about, discussed, or thought about critically.

What would be nice is a split textbook which mixes traditional along with Zinn. I don't think much would get left out (again, as an overview for a non historian, you can't cover everything.) Besides, we are talking school... students have an attention span less than a goldfish and zero interest in the past (unless it's TV reruns) everything has to be summarized. Now if Zinn can get people to think at all or get motivated in anyway-- that is GREAT. Besides, most people tend to get conservative with age so it's not going to turn society into Marxists or whatever.

As far as "I lived in" crap, I don't care. Doesn't make you an expert. Just because you saw things that are worse doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's not black and white. Politically, I'm outside the whole mainstream in the USA. The USA mainstream ranges from mild to strong authoritarian and I'm medium Anarchist, in absolute terms on the freedom scale. Economically, I'm not in the Anarchist half of the scale but the mainstream is. I do know what I'm talking about; I've dabbled quite a bit in both PoliSci and Anthropology, but I'm not an expert, just well read (and it's academic stuff not infotainment. I also never owned a TV.)

Re:Hell no

[crunchygranola]

I don't think you can call someone who got a perfect score on their SAT an utter moron

Bill Gates did not get a perfect SAT score. He got a very good one, 1590 out of 1600, but not perfect. Being a billionaire does not entitle you to score inflation.

Re:Hell no

[peragrin]

That is 1590 on the old tests though. in 1995 they recalculated how the scores where done and people who would have gotten over 1500 suddenly were getting 1600.

I remember both sets of my score. my new score put me in the 1300 range and my old score was 1170.

Re:Hell no

[ChrisMaple]

Ah, I miss the good old days of dates and names. Today's history is taught as the names of historians and their crackpot opinions; history has become the study of "historiography".

Re:Hell no

[lgw]

Gates has transferred billions from the coffers of large corporations, by way of IT products, to charitable programs that directly save lives, and improve the standard of living in the 3rd world. This is bad again why?

Re:My formal history classes were boring

[Artifakt]

Right now, there's videos on You-Tube, under the heading Crash Course World History and Crash Course US History. These are little 10-15 minute pieces teaching history, and the introductory level (freshman college) course goes mostly by locations and eras, while the second level (sophomore equivalent), goes by big threads running through history, like societies energy needs or the effects of disease.
          This sounds like just 'feeling good by watching TV', but its much better than that. I've had college level history, but it didn't mention some things at all (Mansa Musa and the Malian empire for one). If nothing else, this series refreshed what I had already learned and showed me how much world history in the time I was in college was about nothing but Dead White European Males (yes I'm an old fart - but what's being taught now really is more balanced and complete).
          30 seconds into the Renaissance episode, narrator John Green brings up just how many years apart some historical figures we group into that era are, how essentially some of them's great, great grandchildren had died before others were even born, and whether we should even count all those events as one related thing, and it motivated me to go back over when various Italian artists did their work, who was whos student and so on - I'd bet that most people who go a full semester just about the renaissance couldn't tell you that much about which artists influenced or trained which, and a lot of them couldn't tell you if Michaelangelo's David was carved before or after Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa, and if the second artist saw the first one's work and could have been influenced by it or not.
          That same episode kept referencing Ninja Turtles for some reason. Now if that makes you lose respect for the whole thing, that's your choice, but this series does a great job of linking the 'dry', dates and names and wars sort of history to big ideas and the real reasons why it benefits the student to understand history. Is it comprehensive - No! (like I said it's 10 to 15 minutes long, of course it's doesn't have that much depth.) . But if you showed this to a young person about to take his or her first college world history or US history course, they will probably be more turned on to learning history in more depth, and then it's just up to that course to not turn them off. And I guarantee you, they will ask smarter questions .If you show this to a high school freshman you will have a kid who enters highschool already at the level most of the high school courses aim for. In fact, if I had a kid who needed help to write a thousand words on, say, the Mongols, the first thing I would do is cue up that episode of this 'silly' You-Tube video.

Uuuh... I am soooo hurt...

[denzacar]

By an ad hominem from a 4-million pipsqueak who argues with himself in his mind and then drops fragments of those quarrels as if they are arguments.
LOL! Uuuuhhh... now you've "foed" me. Hilarious. Here you go then. Have fun being my "foe".

Judging from your line of thinking, you're probably one of those intellectual behemoths who believe that science is a matter of consensus.
So you can't even grasp the idea of proven scientific facts having a proven effect or direct influence on historic events.

Go on now. Run along.
It's probably your time to jerk off while reading Lacan or something.

Re:Hell no

[phantomfive]

How do you define wisdom?

Re:I don't like to trust people who write "Gates's

[davester666]

Betteridge's law of headlines: No!

Re:Hell no

[whereiswaldo]

My personal point of view is that high school history was full of dates and names and difficult for me to memorize. I did not find it interesting, even though on paper my teacher was a published author and one might assume was doing a fine job teaching. Fast forward to my adult life and I have found many sources of interesting historical accounts and am more interested in history now than I ever was. The interplay of different events on different parts of the world is fascinating.

Re:What an idiot

[Half-pint HAL]

Dissatisfaction with cross borders ethnic groups has the same root as dissatisfaction with voting district gerrymandering: the group that's been split is dissatisfied because they rightly perceive that their ability to influence their surroundings has been artificially reduced and the group that benefitted from the split is dissatisfied with the split group because they now view it's members as a 'minority' out-group.

Yes, but why did they get split? In Europe it tended to be because of the interplay of technological change with geographical factors, whereas in Africa and the Middle East, if was often largely political, and down to the whims of the colonial powers.

Re:Hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

But he is wrong. Big history isn't a bad thing, but just as an overview of what was happening. In order to understand the overview you have to get into a lot of the details.

Trying to understand that much history without any of the details is impossible. Things are generally more complicated than they seem and leaving things out like the fact that most of the people involved with the Boston Tea Party were themselves in the business of producing tea, results in a very different interpretation of the event. It does from patriotism to more run of the mill destroying the competitors wares. And don't get me started about them dressing up as natives to do it.

Or MLK, if you leave out the bit about his being stabbed by his mistress, he's a much less interesting character. Or how about Ghandi's acceptance of non-violence for practical reasons rather than religious?

You can't really get any history if you don't understant the context in which it's been made. But, you can't really understand the context if you haven't gotten the details either. As a survey course this isn't a bad idea, but it's hardly a replacement for more thorough education on the matter.

Re:Hell no

[mwvdlee]

This.

What is important is that historical event A caused historical event B, which lead to historical event C. Not whether event A happened in 1674, 1675 or 1676.

Re:Hell no

[king neckbeard]

Because the economic damages caused by his actions are probably orders of magnitude greater than his philanthropic effort, which has been questioned regarding their efficacy, negative impact, and neutrality. Kind of mirrors Rockefeller.

Re:The person is irrelevant

[mod prime]

When you don't know the merits, using the proposer as a proxy is quite regularly successful.

historical banner ads

[Anomalyst]

the banners are animated GIF with accompanying audio at full volme.

adulation

[Anomalyst]

who think that any idea he has is worthy of adulation.

Shouldn't that be ululation?

Re:Hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont forget the Google CEO who wants to collect intelligence on the world population, so that U.S. power can inspect every asshole on the globe. We apparently dont have enough NSAGCHQ yet.

These folks realize they can never usefully spend their umptillions, as soon as they have their private 757 jet and a dozen villas. So the next kick comes from playing "power projection". In other words they are so bored they want to play war.

Re:Fucking die Gates

[ChrisMaple]

Making sure teachers are well paid and have the resources they need is the way to improve education.

Up until students reach about 12 years of age the requirements for their teachers are pretty trivial; the supply of potential elementary school teachers far exceeds the demand. Hence fairly low pay,

Resources? Don't be funny. Keeping a schoolroom warm (or cool in Florida) costs more than a chalkboard and a couple of hundred public domain texts.

Microsoft History ©

[lippydude]

Yea, in his alternative history of computing, Microsoft actually contributed original technology and didn't rip-off everybody else. See for example where Bill Gates personally 'welcomes` Netscape into the Industry?

1996: Bill Gates 'welcomes` Netscape into the Industry.

"As Netscape comes into the industry, we hope they adopt a PC mentality [of documenting changes to standards],. They've been making lots of changes to JavaScript. We think they should document that."
--

ref: by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06, 2014 @08:44AM (#47840421)

The first computers in the world were invented by Microsoft in 1981 to run the revolutionary MS-DOS operating system, before which humanity had no computers at all. In 1985 Microsoft invented the graphical user interface and the mouse. Microsoft Windows was the most secure operating system in the world, and also the easiest to use with the introduction of the revolutionary Microsoft Bob.

Microsoft would go on to invent the Internet, graciously allowing rival companies to establish a presence on Microsoft's new network. Microsoft created the most loved user interface in the world with the exciting new Windows 8 Aero.

You can purchase exciting new Microsoft products at the following participating retailers near you!

Instead of B:C and AC ...

[porky_pig_jr]

we're gonna have BG and AG. Or may be BM and AM.

Re:Hell no

[lgw]

Really? Evil? I don't buy it one bit. He sold a set of software products that companies wanted to buy. Products that were no fun to support, of course, or for geeks to use in many cases, but let's please not confuse "icky" with "evil".

Right now people are being beheaded in the middle east for the crime of minding their own business while having the wrong religion. That's Evil. Something like 1300 girls we're allowed to be used as sex slaves - raped over and over for years - in a developed nation because of misguided notions of political correctness. That's evil. Windows ME was merely icky.

Re:Hell no

[lgw]

What economic damages? I don't get it. Are you complaining that MS bought a lot of small software companies the way every large tech firm does? Are you complaining that MS products weren't as good as you'd have liked (compared to what? IBMs offerings at the time? please).

I've never understood the burning MS hatred on Slashdot. Yes, MS had a lot of second-rate products, but so do most companies in the world!

People will complain about anything, but it pisses me off to see people who likely give nothing at all to charity complaining that someone who does isn't doing it the way they would.

Re:I don't like to trust people who write "Gates's

[OneAhead]

Roughly a millennium later, in an alternative time line where Sauron won the war:
OMFG THAT'S'SSSS BOSSSSSS55S55555five555fifty-five

Re:I don't like to trust people who write "Gates's

[presidenteloco]

Could you give some specifics of things Bill Gates has been revisionist about? Just curious.

Re:I don't like to trust people who write "Gates's

[flargleblarg]

I don't like to put trust in people who write "Gates's"
And three times in the same sentence! (Legal, but annoying.)

Relax, you'll be in good hands soon. The wambulance has been called and should be arriving shortly.

Gates's is the clearest form of the possessive nominative.

Interested in amassing wealth

[EdmundSS]

I expect that most of those poor famous artists and scientists were interested in amassing sufficient wealth, but were unsuccessful; very few people choose to be poor.

Re:Interested in amassing wealth

[khallow]

You are what Reiss refers to as a self-hugger--you mistakenly believe that most individuals share the same motivations as you. Studies have shown that this simply isn't true.

Yes, that thing where humans are motivated by "different ranges of desires" which happen to be the same for everyone. And where's the evidence humans are biologically or mentally capable of being something other than a "self-hugger"?

The studies may well measure something meaningful, but you are running a traditional argument from ignorance fallacy.

Re: Interested in amassing wealth

[khallow]

No, I don't think this is a serious post. First, we have proof by a research paper where the researcher spends a fair portion of their time inventing terms for imaginary phenomena. Now, we're consulting Seinfeld as if it were scientific observation. That's pretty much the progression one would expect for this topic.

Bill Gates' History

[sgt_doom]

So please allow humble me to sum up his history:

Gates mommy was buds with the CEO of IBM who handed over the greatest licensing deal in human history, the DOS license, to her boy, BillG. BillG hires a dood named Tim who copies Gary Kildall's CP/M operating system, and calls it DOS (actually, the legal term for what Gates & company did was software piracy). Next, BillG gets his company Micro-something-or-other, financed through his uncle, who was VP of First Interstate at the time. Finally, BillG and company license everybody else's imaginative products and reengineers them into their operating system. (Do we still call that software piracy?)

The End.

Re:Hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually found that quite good. They're kind of teaching Algebra in a way.

Re:Hell no

[swillden]

Really? Evil? I don't buy it one bit. He sold a set of software products that companies wanted to buy. Products that were no fun to support, of course, or for geeks to use in many cases, but let's please not confuse "icky" with "evil".

"Evil" is probably too strong, but Microsoft's misdeeds were considerably worse than merely making products that were less than ideal. Microsoft engaged in some pretty shady business practices which were clearly detrimental to the competitive landscape, harming consumers not just by providing inferior products but by actively preventing better products from being able to reach them.

The most serious of these actions was in the agreements they made OEMs sign in order to sell machines with Windows (and before that, DOS). Because the MS OSes were dominant, OEMs had to have access to their products, so Microsoft leveraged that by requiring OEMs to sign exclusivity agreements guaranteeing that the OEMs would not offer for sale PCs with any competing software. This is the abuse that the anti-trust trial really should have focused on, not the browser wars.

There were many other examples, though. Lots of cases in which Microsoft abused their OS dominance to prevent competitive apps from running well, stabbed business partners in the back, made moves to suppress useful new technologies until they could get around to making their own (generally inferior) version, etc. Largely, this was just business as usual for an aggressive and not particularly moral company, but given Microsoft's commanding position much of it really crossed the line.

And, of course, there's the fact that when Microsoft got hauled into court and ultimately signed a consent decree agreeing to limit certain anti-competitive behaviors, they just ignored the decree.

I could go on, but it doesn't matter. All of that is in the past, because Microsoft, while still very powerful, is no longer in a position to be as dangerous as they were, and the company does seem to have mellowed and become a somewhat better corporate citizen as well.

But they definitely were much worse than what you describe, though clearly not evil on the scale of ISIS.

Re:Hell no

[king neckbeard]

They've engaged in anticompetitive behavior for a long time, and did a lot to break standards (you know that good ole embrace, extend, extinguish). Such behavior causes lots of harm, which is why we have antitrust law.

People will complain about anything, but it pisses me off to see people who likely give nothing at all to charity complaining that someone who does isn't doing it the way they would.

The biggest problem isn't that they are doing charity inefficiently. Even if Gates donated 100% of his money to the charities and research I felt most deserving, that wouldn't put his ledger in the black.

Re:Hell no

[Aryden]

Had we not learned from history, would we have the nation that we have today? Had we not learned from history, would we not have the sciences, art, and great works of this day? All of our greatest accomplishments in time have been based on an event, person or persons in history. History, whether you like it or not, makes us the people we are today. Should we forget about the wars our nations fought? Should we forget about the civil advancements of our past generations?

summary

[Tom]

'Frankly, in the eyes of the critics, he's really not an expert. He just happens to be a guy that watched a DVD and thought it was a good idea and had a bunch of money to fund it."

Best summary, ever. The primary problem with american culture today is this attitude of "money makes right", which is simply a modern version of "might makes right". There is a deep-rooted, often unconscious, assumption that because someone was successful (in business), he is smarter or more correct than someone who is not so bright and public. This ignores the fundamental truth that skillsets do not always overlap, and that celebrities main skill is very often self-marketing.

Just like Athens won the Persian War, not Sparta as "300" wants us to believe, in real life the tale of the lone hero, or the bright, misunderstood inventor, is usually just that: A tale.

And history is full of rich people giving money to total bullshit ideas.

Re:summary

[david_thornley]

Athens and Sparta won the Persian war. Athens defeated the Persian fleet at Salamis, and with it the chance at a quick takeover of Greece. The Persians then left a powerful army to defeat Greece in a less spectacular way, and that was defeated by the Spartans and allies at Plataea.

However, the Athenians wrote all the interesting books, Spartan culture being mostly militaristic and, well, spartan.

Re:Hell no

[Tom]

That's beside the point though, if you had the money, how would you use it philanthropically to make the world a better place?

Grants to existing scholars, scientists and researchers in their fields who are making actual scientific progress, instead of making their lives more difficult by founding some hot shot idea you found interesting.

Someone as allegedly smart as Gates, who spent all his life in a company whose success is first and foremost based on marketing and manipulation of perception could be expected to understand that if you read, hear or watch someone telling his great idea and you're fascinated with it afterwards, you can be sure that you have seen a good sales man, but you have no clue whether or not you've seen a good idea.

Re:I don't like to trust people who write "Gates's

[Half-pint HAL]

It iS wrong.

No it's not. The traditional rule is not about euphony (look it up), but about grammar. Traditionally, S-apostrophe was used for plural possessive and plural possessive only, and names ending in S were considered singular, and took the full apostrophe-S ending. The modern variant on this that sees forms such as Gates' house permitted may be what's called a "hypercorrection" -- kids getting told off for saying or writing "the dogs's bones" overapply their teachers' corrections to situations where it is not applicable. But even this modern variant isn't even euphonic, because we still say "the fox's den", "the boss's temper", etc. for any common noun ending in an /s/ phoneme.

The alternative source of this change may be in confusion of the classifier noun with the possessive: in "Edinburgh Airport", Edinburgh functions as a classifier noun. The possessive would be "Edinburgh's airport" (note though that airport is no longer capitalised as it is not part of a compound proper noun here). If we apply that to Paris, we see "Paris Airport" vs "Paris's airport". If the former is heard as the latter, it's actually "Paris' airport" in the listener's head. How would this affect surnames? Simple. The current President of the USA is from "the Obama family", Bill Gates is from "the Gates family" -- surname as classifier noun.

So that's language change in action, but the thing with language change is that it's never immediate and it's never absolute. The old rule and the new rule coexist, and will do for quite some time.

Re:Hell no

[Half-pint HAL]

True. However, once you know the linking factors, they often make the timing much easier to remember. For example, if you understand that Kaiser Wilhelm's subjects bought into the propaganda about Germany being the most powerful country on the planet, and that they therefore believed that the only way that they could have been defeated was by internal sabotage, you can start to understand why the Nazi party managed to successfully scapegoat so many different groups, and the public bought it. But if you also know that a teenaged message runner by the name of Adolf Hitler served in the Kaiser's army as a message runner in the trenches, you can conceptualise the time between wars as the time it took him to climb up the social ladder to the point where he could take power (his mid-forties). It took me many, many years before I could remember 1914-1918 and 1938-1945, and even once I did, I never fully understood how short a period of time there was in between then, until I saw it in terms of the lifetime of one man.

As an alternative example, another key thing in history lessons is the line of succession of kings, or presidents in the case of the US, and there dates. I can quote you four US presidents in order: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford. Now I can't tell you the dates, but I can tell you why it would be easy to remember them. First up, history says Kennedy beat Nixon thanks to TV, so Kennedy must be the first of the four. Kennedy was shot, and Johnson was his VP. Johnson got re-elected on the back of popular grief for the death of Kennedy. Nixon was impeached, and his VP took over -- Ford. Due to Nixon's unpopularity, Ford was not voted back in at the next election. So now we've got a cause-and-effect that puts everything into perspective. Adding the details to this "bigger picture" would be very simple indeed,

Re:Why were they forced together ?

[Half-pint HAL]

Yes, but: why did the current border end up where it was? Traditionally the Rhine (sorry, we use the French spelling in English) would have been the centre of a territory, as it was the best means of transport available, hence the similarities between Alsacien in France and the extremely closely related dialects just across the river. Yet technology meant that the Rhine became more useful as a defensible border, and the people were split. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?

Re:Hell no

[Jack Griffin]

Trouble is that the specific detail of totally foreign concepts (in pace and time) is boring to kids. Perhaps we should team up with Hollywood to create some blockbuster history films (300, Gladiator, Master and Commander etc) then use these as a base for lessons. Even if the film is mostly crap, it gives a good starting point to conceptualise the time, place and physical limitations that history was faced with. I know I learnt a lot after watching 300, not so much from the movie itself, it was mostly spaghetti, but it sparked the interest in how the real events unfolded, and gave the foundation for understanding all the logistical challenges each side face leading up to, during and after the battle.

Re:Hell no

[Jack Griffin]

Same here. I fall asleep reading a book cold, but after watching a 'based-on-fact' movie, I can spend the next week reading all about it and learning what actually happened compared to the dramatised version on screen. I'm sure there are lots of people out there like me, who struggled with the type of learning methods rather than the subject matter, and hence get bored and caused trouble instead. Bill is a smart guy, I'm sure he's not just doing this to sell more copies of Windows 8.

Re:Hell no

[Jack Griffin]

You avoided the question, what economic damages? I know some nerds got their noses out of joint because Bill's vision of IT was different than their own, but seriously to make omelet you have to break a few eggs. If you want to crusade against a fat cat, then I suggest you look up Rupert Murdoch. That is Satan himself. While Bill is out there trying to improve lives, Rupert is actively supporting wars in the Middle East and murdering children. If you have some hate for rich guys, let's at least see a bit more balance toward those who deserve it most.

Re:Hell no

[CaptainDork]

Should we forget about the civil advancements of our past generations?

Apparently so, and this makes my point.

Re:Hell no

[phantomfive]

So you would create something like the Institute for Advanced Studies?

Re: I don't like to trust people who write "Gates

[ambient_bryan]

Has anybody actually read the article in full? It's not his history. It's the university professor who teaches it in Australia. Get a grip people.

Re:Hell no

[lgw]

Well, if that's your standard, I do hope you're personally donating enough to the charities you feel most deserving (political groups don't count) to cover all the flaws and misbehavior any random stranger might see in you (or at least that you see in yourself).

Re:Hell no

[bbsalem]

Let's teach kids something they can actually use to contribute and make a living.

UMM, this is an historical artifact of a system or organization that did not exist until the 18th century, and doesn't yet exist in many parts of the world, yet. So history tells you where your proverbial values come from, how the value of finding a job and contributing in a secular organization that does not use kinship and religion to establish its trusts. Go look at other parts of the world, you seem ignorant of the different ways relationships come about. We live in a ruthless mertiocracy, some guy you have never met gets to decide if you are suitable for his job description after talking to you for five minutes, and he uses information of a sort that wouldn't make any sense in most other places in the world. Everybody has to find a role in their society; has to find a way to get what they need, to earn their way. but the details of that very so much from place to place and over time. That is something that history tells you something about.

As an example, one might find a stronger connection in the mind set of Islamist Jehadists in Africa and the Middle East today and Protestant reformers in Germany in the 16th and 17th centuries, or the Catholics that opposed them, and that may help us understand if it is a good idea for us to be involved as we are in the Middle East today, it isn't. and what is clear is that the poor knowledge of history at the very highest echelons of our government shows in the projection of our values on people in other nations and our vulnerability to pitfalls of history long gone, greed, racism, religious intolerance, ignoring the differences between them and us. It is appauling.

I wouldn't trust Bill Gates to teach me anything, and not his chance to use his wealth to be revisionist on History; but on the other hand, America has such a poor grasp of world history that it may not make all that much difference which liar is in the mix. We already have been feed a load of lies, much of it by omision, so in spite of what Gates is about, the answer is, as it is with many other abuses, the full light of research and disclosure. People tell lies all the time, but careful research eventually catches up with them. So, lets have the careful work undaunted by powerful people throwing their weight around, whether that if Vladimir Putin, Iraq Obama or Dick Chainey of Command.

Re:Hell no

[bbsalem]

A hundred years from now Bill Gates will be remembered as a great man. Even today no one gives a shit about you. Slashdot and its users are so sad and pathetic.

Ha, Ha, Ha, by then he will be revealed as a rip-off artist, a business man who stole from and took advantage of people much more creative than he, and someone whose company stole from its consumers. He might have the reputation of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, but will be only a foot note to the people who really made digital technology. By then, John McCarthy will be more famous for inventing lisp than some third rate hack who ripped off a BASIC interpreter, and existing operating system and created a captive market, and maybe by then that kind of exploitation might really be disliked, so it may be Gates that gets revised out of history.

Context is important to history

[iMactheKnife]

I think it;s a great idea. Context is essential to history. The parched, knothole view I got in high school was worthless. This big view is right on. Let's hope some revisionist scum do not try to make this into political ideology.

Except for the money, Gates seems to be staying out of the lesson planning.

Re:Hell no

[strikethree]

I've never understood the burning MS hatred on Slashdot. Yes, MS had a lot of second-rate products, but so do most companies in the world!

You miss the forest for the trees. How did those second rate products come to dominate the computing landscape? Answer that, and you will be one step closer to the evil and why MS is hated.

There are still plenty of other reasons to hate them and call them evil. It has to do with actions, not products.

I am concerned about your "supposed" lack of knowledge on this subject. You have been here for at least a decade now. You have surely seen some of the detailed listings of evil actions and explanations of the hatred. It kind of makes me wonder about your motivations.

Re:Hell no

[strikethree]

Right now people are being beheaded in the middle east for the crime of minding their own business while having the wrong religion. That's Evil.

No doubt. Your other example is also a great example of evil... but that does not negate other evils in this world. Sure, being raped is not as evil as being murdered, but both are definitely evil. Sure, having your livelihood destroyed through illegal means is not as bad as being raped... but it is still evil.

I could go on and on, but what is the point? You already know about all of the evil things documented publicly in the Microsoft trial so many years ago and yet you refuse to acknowledge that they are doing evil things. Go ahead and claim that all of that is in the past. It does not matter as they are still doing the exact same things, just slightly differently so they are not caught out.

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

The way he got all that money in the first place is evil.

Were you born retarded or did your father hit you over the head with a hammer throughout your youth to achieve this? There is nothing dumber than MS haters on Slashdot.

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

The most serious of these actions was in the agreements they made OEMs sign in order to sell machines with Windows

Was that evil? Why?The alternative was Linux (in reality) and Linux on the desktop back then was a joke, a cruel, bad, pathetic joke. Today it is just a bad, pathetic joke, and it doesn't have to deal with this "evil" by Microsoft. The OEM agreements may have harmed Digital Research a tiny bit, but not by much.

The main pieces of software where Microsoft have made money were (besides the OS), Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Word has a formidable competitor in Word Perfect, but Microsoft didn't kill WP in a sneaky, under-handed way. Microsoft killed WP when the morons at the Word Perfect team refused to release a functional product for Windows. Microsoft Word 2.0 was a product that was heads and shoulders above Word Perfect in usability. Sure, if you wanted to write a book with annotations etc, WP was still more functional, but most people do not want to do that. Most people write a page or five and they do not even care about styles (which they should). WP "died" because the people developing WP were morons. Excel - same thing. It was a huge success on the Mac, and when Microsoft released it properly for Windows, the competition committed suicide.

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

They've engaged in anticompetitive behavior for a long time

Who was harmed. Please use some examples.

did a lot to break standards

The most quoted example of this seems to be a specific version of IE. It killed off Netscape, not because it was evil but because Microsoft tried to innovate just a little. I'll agree that it wasn't a particularly good way to innovate, but it was that particular version of IE, today slammed and hated, was a huge improvement over Netscape. It also, through the XmlHttpRequest object, launched what we now all do, namely Web 2.0, DOM manipulation (not much of a point unless you had the XmlHttpRequest object) and what we now "love" about Single Page Apps.

ActiveX and many, many other things, the fact that IE6 was neglected for so long for example, were bad behaviors, and we (and Microsoft by the way) still suffer the consequences. Don't see how it killed anyone or anything though. Netscape was an abhorrent monster long before IE6 came along. Thank goodness for the likes of Opera and (later) Google though.

Re:Hell no

[king neckbeard]

That's my standard for 'a great man.' I make no claim to be a great man, or even a decent person.

Re:Hell no

[king neckbeard]

The economic damages of illegally destroying competition in those markets. I'm not on a tirade against rich guys, I'm on a tirade against convicted monopolists. Rupert Murdoch and News Corp should likely fit in the same boat, but don't think that Gates giving to charity makes him any different then any other robber baron. In fact, you'll find plenty of buildings and institutions named after robber barons.

Re:Hell no

[mwvdlee]

Remember BeOS and OS/2?

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

They stamped out competition in the consumer OS space via shady OEM contracts

They did? Who was stamped out? Digital Research? Hardly. Linux? Don't make me laugh.

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

How did those second rate products come to dominate the computing landscape?

By not having first-rate competition. Which first-rate products did their shady practices out-compete through shady business practices?

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

a business man who stole from and took advantage of people much more creative than he

Such as? This is actually a serious question. From whom did he steal? What people did he take advantage of? Who were these creative people?

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

company whose success is first and foremost based on marketing and manipulation of perception

We are talking about Bill Gates, not Steve Jobs.

Re:Hell no

[Talderas]

Consecutive President & Election Years (As Best I can Remember)

Asterisk means the President died in office or had to leave before his term was up.

Theodore Roosevelt (1900, 1908), Woodrow Wilson (1912, 1916), Calvin Coolidge (1920, 1924), Herbert Hoover (1928), Franklin Roosevelt* (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944), Harry Truman (1948), Dwight Eisenhower (1952), John Kennedy* (1960), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Richard Nixon* (1968 & 1972), Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (1976), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), George Bush Sr (1988), Bill Clinton (1992), George Bush Jr (2000), Barack Obama (2008).

Ford didn't lost to Carter because he pardoned Nixon. That happened in 1974 and the election was in 1976. 1975 would have been the primary election against Ronald Reagan. If you want further proof of how little the pardon mattered Ford closed from about a 30 pt Carter win to a 2 pt Carter victory. In a strange twist of fate it probably was pardons that permitted Carter to win but not Nixon's. Carter had promised an unconditional pardon to all the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War while Ford was conditional. His polling numbers after that froze in four states where just 11,000 votes could have given him the election.

Re:Hell no

[Aryden]

It doesn't, but I get the point you were trying to make.

Re:Hell no

[CaptainDork]

... but I get the point you were trying to make.

Then it does.

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

BeOS was a bust, OS/2 was unsupported by its creator (I developed software for OS/2 and Warp was great). Warp was too little too late.

Re:Hell no

[david_thornley]

You don't need that much geography, and you can pick it up with the history (and it'll be more meaningful that way). What you need to know is how geography affects things. You need to know the difference between a land-dominated transport system and a sea-dominated (and that isn't necessarily a function of the geography alone: North Africa moved from a sea-dominated under Greek and Roman influence to a land-dominated under Arab rule). You need to realize that, while a river or the middle of a mountain range looks like a natural boundary, it's usually populated by fairly homogenous river people or mountain people (and therefore that cross-border ethnic groups are natural developments). You want to teach them about the Alps and the Massif Central, you're going to do better by explaining them as influences on Caesar's campaigns. (Personally, I'm much better at the geography of places I take a historical interest in.)

Re:You are a SLAVE

[Tom]

You BOW to these "experts".

You know nothing about me and yet assume a lot.

You cannot imagine that YOU could be part of the government and have a rifle at your home. Like these "swiss" men.

Guns have nothing to do with it at all. Here in Europe, it is very clear. We have countries neighbouring each other with very similar culture and economy, one of them has lots of guns and the other has very little. Differences in wealth, political corruption or empowerment? Negliegable.

This "I have a rifle, fuck the government" romantic misconception is from a time when the rifle you had was a match for the weapons the government had. What, exactly, will it do for you when the government comes with an APC, assault rifles, drones and all that shit?

Re:Hell no

[david_thornley]

The problem is not that Gates and I disagree on various things, the problem is that, for a long long time, it was Gates' way or the highway. Competition is good for the consumer. It also sucks for the competitors, so they try to eliminate the competition. Microsoft still has a lock on desktop and laptop OSes, office systems, and a few other things, and competitors have problems getting any traction in many markets.

Even when they won on quality, it wasn't good. IE 5 and IE 6 were, at the time, excellent web browsers, and Microsoft might well have won on quality alone. This led to a thorough lack of competition until Firefox came along and prodded Microsoft into trying to improve IE after years of neglect.

Re:Hell no

[david_thornley]

We'll never know the full story of the first-rate products we missed out on. For quite some time, we didn't get much competition in areas Microsoft dominated in or might want to. People who might have done this felt that they'd be likely to be merely doing free market research for Microsoft. This has changed a lot recently.

Re:Hell no

[strikethree]

Really? You are going to waste my time asking that question? If I can name even one, will you accept that my point is valid? Probably not but here are two that were detailed in their trial: Word Perfect and Netscape Navigator.

They also killed the Amiga and they utterly destroyed Apple. Apple only exists today because Bill Gates through Microsoft decided to purchase some Apple stock so that Microsoft could claim that they had competition.

But facts do not matter here. All of these things are well known facts and the denial of Microsoft's, Bill Gates', and Steve Ballmer's evilness can only be because someone is either a fanboi or a paid shill.

Good luck on trying to rewrite history.

Re:Hell no

[Tom]

Parent comment is living proof that the lameness filter on /. is broken.

Read this in the New York Times

[WillAffleckUW]

I read the print version of this in the New York Times Magazine, from the Sunday print edition.

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Hell No.

It's an overview systems course. Yes, it's boring memorizing dates, and change is better than the pablum that Texas approves for the US textbooks, but this is not better, just different.

You shall not pass!

Re: Did you RTFM?

[WillAffleckUW]

Has anybody actually read the article in full? It's not his history. It's the university professor who teaches it in Australia. Get a grip people.

I read the full article in the New York Times Magazine insert in the Sunday print edition of the New York Times.

Does that count?

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

We'll never know the full story of the first-rate products we missed out on.

Wow, I love your argument. Since Microsoft were only creating mediocre products magically that prevented their magical hypothetical competition from creating magical hypothetical software of magical unicorn quality. You are clearly fully rational.

I'll take bookzz.org instead

[bd580slashdot]

http://bookzz.org/ free ebooks Arrrr matey!

Re:I'll take bookzz.org instead

[volmtech]

Actually I found the book on Free e-Books.net, their download button linked to the cnx.org site. Thanks for the link. You can't have to many free sources.

I really hate...

[kaatochacha]

I really hate how people, fantastically successful at one task/job, suddenly decide they're superior and all-knowing in all areas.
"Oh yes, I made billions making and selling on operating system. So naturally I'm a genius in history education"
"Oh yes, I was a big hit modelling naked and being on a talk show, so naturally I can pontificate on how immunizations cause autism"
"Oh yes, I'm a big star of screen and film, and they pay me millions to act. So naturally, my political views are unimpeachable"

Re:Hell no

[Half-pint HAL]

That's sort of my point. History has traditionally been taught as though it's all about people and thought, whereas in reality it is a reaction to many more physical processes.

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

Word Perfect and Netscape Navigator.

Seriously?

Word Perfect for Windows was total crap. It didn't lose because of shady Microsoft techniques, it lost because Word 2.0 was centuries ahead of Word Perfect for the vast majority of the population. Word Perfect owned the word processing market but lost it because the development and management teams were utterly incompetent in addition to be so full of them selves that no matter how much market loss they were experience they refused to listen to their customers.

Netscape was ruling the world until IE6, in hindsight a crap browser, but at the time, heads, shoulders and entire torsos above Netscape. At the time. Afterwards Netscape grew into a bloated monster and the world was saved by Google Chrome.

Re:Hell no

[painandgreed]

How do you define wisdom?

3d6

Re:Hell no

[david_thornley]

Yup, fully rational, and old enough to have been fully rational during Microsoft's dominance.

There were cases where somebody created a market, and Microsoft used various techniques to dominate it, to the detriment of the original market-maker. In the case of web browsers, Netscape created the market, and Microsoft used anticompetitive practices and temporarily making a very good browser for the time to take over the market. At that point, with IE dominating on MS Windows and the Macintosh, there were some browsers with minor success (iCab and Opera come to mind), but nobody put serious resources into taking back the market until Firefox.

Re:Hell no

[strikethree]

Word Perfect for Windows was total crap.

I agree, the first version for Windows was crap.

...because Word 2.0 was centuries ahead of Word Perfect for the vast majority of the population.

lolwut? Word was crap and still is crap. It is barely suitable for writing cheap business documents.

Word Perfect owned the word processing market but lost it because the development and management teams were utterly incompetent...

You are correct that they owned the word processing market but you are utterly and completely wrong about the development and management teams being incompetent. Microsoft was changing the functionality of the APIs and such so that ALL competitors would appear to be incompetent and incapable of matching the "utter awesomeness" of Word.

That is all documented in the anti-trust trial so I will not continue to argue with you about it. The Netscape issue was how the whole trial started so I fail to understand why you are even arguing about all of this. Perhaps you wish for the world to be different than it is...

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

somebody created a market, and Microsoft used various techniques to dominate it

Yes. So did Google. IBM. Cisco. In fact, all companies in the world more or less.

and Microsoft used anticompetitive practices

Yes, they bundled software with the OS. Strangely so does every other operating system vendor these days, but...

Re:Hell no

[terjeber]

is barely suitable for writing cheap business documents

Firstly, that's utter bullshit, but if you are talking about Word 2.0, sure. You forget one thing though. The following part of the sentence: "for the vast majority of the population". For the vast majority of the population, including about 99% of the business document producers, even Word 2.0 is still plenty good (missing some cloud integration etc, but you get my point - for writing documents that 99% of the population does.

Microsoft was changing the functionality of the APIs

That was not a problem. The problem with WP was not that it got tripped by Microsoft, the problem with WP for Windows was that it functioned completely different than all other Windows applications. The WP teams insisted on following their own GUI Guidelines rather than following the "standard" GUI functionality. The development team and the architects plus their managers were all incompetent fools. They were so full of them selves that they didn't start changing WP in sensible ways until it was way too late.

None of the problems with WP had anything to do with Microsoft APIs.

The Netscape issue was how the whole trial started

It was a bullsh*t trial, IMnsHO. The basic tenet of the trial was absurd. The fact that Microsoft bundled a browser with their operating system was not anti-competitive in any way. Netscape would have been able to out-compete IE if it was in any way a useful product. Netscape never became half-way decent and even though Firefox started out OK it quickly spiraled into oblivion due to it being crap. It still is. Chrome would have been almost at the market share of IE right now if it hadn't been for the dumb asses clinging to the bloated monster that is FF.

Re:Hell no

[bbsalem]

Go do your own research. Investigate the origins of PC-DOS and the BASIC interpeter and the relationship Gates had with people in the early days around 1977. You will see that he "borrowed" from people and did not invent major parts of what he later called his own.

But the biggest case against Gates is the misinformation he spread, that the design of Windows was an answer to the complexity of the UNIX shell and that his proprietory approach was just a business ploy to create a captive market and to deny consumers the knowledge that they could have used to get more powerful and reliable tools. Microsoft practiced monopolistic and preditory strategies on its customers, the OEM agreement with hardware vendors; it kept them in the dark deliberately so that they would believe that Windows was magical and mysterious, under Gates, when it was just inferior and lacking in use. Remember that Microsoft had Xenix, a UNIX for X86, and deliberately dumbed down MS-DOS so it could keep its users in the dark. It wasn't until Vista that Windows had decent logging so that a user could actually have a clue to diagnose problems. That was intended and the market for Windows was captive enough so that ignorant users would still go buy an inferior product, even today, The answer to Microsoft is not Linux it is OS X. If Apple wanted to kill Microsoft it would be to embrace Hackintosh and cut the cost of the hardware by half.