History is worth studying (duh). But I fear that even when we do study it, humanity is wired in such a manner as to relive its errors. Ironically, the lessons of history seem to have more merit when they are history. War, political action, and human rights movements offer historians a podium from which to declare how events from one, two, or even three thousand years ago can provide guidance to today’s most prominent concerns. Those voices are too often ignore. “Now” has a level of arrogance attached to it. It’s different. It’s our generation. It’s “now”.
In an analogy-pushing article – Google, Rome, and Empire – the author argues that similarities exist between Romes development of roads and what Google is trying to do with Chrome OS (read the comments in the article – they challenge many of the assertions made by the author).
I’m less interested in the specific declarations of how Chrome OS may or may not serve as the internet’s infrastructure in the future, than I am in the value of applying history’s lesson to the digital world. Is the internet a “new world”? Or is it simply an overhyped-extension of the physical world? Do different rules apply? Is it “conquered” according to the military strategies of centuries past?
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
3 Comments
I gotta comment as a historian. The analogy between Rome and Google is a new analogy only. As with all efforts to tie “history” to current events, the author picked and chose from the Roman Empire and made comparisons. The link between them is actually the collection of analogies developed by the business world, in comparing economic empires to military empires. In many ways such analogies don’t fit at all, but they give us deeper understanding via the creation of the analogies themselves — some aspects will overlap, and those that do provide insight. This is why history seems to repeat itself, because there are always just enough differences for people to claim this is a new situation and thus earlier similar events don’t apply (as you noted). Similarly, the “lessons” only reside in the analogies — history doesn’t actually repeat itself, because there is always more than one lesson tied to the same event or era.
In terms of the internet itself, I’m afraid I’m old-fashioned and consider it as an extension of communication rather than a “new world”. Communication technologies have been changing over time, and each one seems to expand the connections between individuals, and provides a more accessible array of resources. The “goodness” that results from this may be what’s overhyped.
Lisa
Hi Lisa – I was thinking of some of your comments in CCK08 when I read the article…wondering what a historian would say about the analysis!
Great comment: “Similarly, the “lessons” only reside in the analogies — history doesn’t actually repeat itself, because there is always more than one lesson tied to the same event or era.”
In terms of the internet – I’m moving in a different direction with my thinking than you are. I think it’s developing into another space, not simply an extension of communication. As data overlay and augmented reality develop, this will become more prominent.
Hi! George, please don’t get me wrong — I don’t think of an extension of communication in terms of “merely”. Rather, extending communication is one of the most crucial of global human activities! It is the source of most human creativity, and peaceful mutual understanding cannot exist without extensive contacts. I only differ where people claim that such extension is a guaranteed “good”, that peaceful and productive relations will automatically result. I understand the idea of it being a space, but in many ways all intellectual communicative endeavor is also a space, such as that enabled by trade, ideological spread, and the sharing of resources over millenia.
Post a Comment