So what if they were giants.
Having grown up with the exceedingly well-known quote by George Santayana that:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
I feel compelled to admit that in the case of the internet, I'm not really sure
that knowing its history is actually very important. Yes, it's a fascinating history,
and one that deserves to be told. (It's certainly pleasing to note that what might
be called counter-histories to the official version
of the ARPANET / Department of Defense origins of the internet have recently been
published.) But beyond setting the historical record straight (or at least pointing
us in additional directions toward a fuller understanding of that history) is
there any logical reason that people who start off on their internet journeys
by clicking on a link should have to know something about gophers and how they
predominated the hypertextual landscape before the web? Less than it being a case
of giving credit where credit is due (and I'm certainly in favor that that) it
would seem that (if anyone is still teaching about this stuff) it's a case of
not being able to break free from bushels and barrels and pecks because learning
about these was once in the curriculum, even if nobody knows what they are anymore.
Being able to see far into the distance may still be a function of standing on
the shoulders of giants, but in internet terms there seem be an awful lot of foundations
that no longer demand being built upon.
Go to: Carrying cognitive baggage from the old
country