Has anyone experienced teaching or learning history in reverse chronological order (that is, from present to past)?

No, but it sounds like a good idea.

Not taught in reverse, but I've often had to judge history by modern ideas - not good.

It makes a certain amount of sense in that the further back you go the less helpful it is in understanding what is going on today.

I think my perspective of history has been twisted by my reading sci-fi since 4th grade. I tend to regard technology as more important than historical figures. The atomic bomb is more important than FDR tho he had to OK its development.

Is technology now more in control of our futures than the politicians?

It wouldn't make any sense to teach it in reverse because of the cause/ effect principle.

It makes a certain amount of sense in that the further back you go the less helpful it is in understanding what is going on today.

d)))i dont feel that. i understand that the further you explore the roots--which means going back in history and pre-history, the MORE you you understand whats goin on now.

I think my perspective of history has been twisted by my reading sci-fi since 4th grade. I tend to regard technology as more important than historical figures. The atomic bomb is more important than FDR tho he had to OK its development.

d))why?

Is technology now more in control of our futures than the politicians?

the ultimate in technology. what gets the suits REALLY drooling is war technology. BOTH are in control IF you let them be. admittedly they can melt you and worse, but they cant encage your mind unless you let them

It wouldn't make any sense to teach it in reverse because of the cause/ effect principle.

Actually, it is already being taught that way by a few teachers, who have reported great success. What it does is makes history meaningful as an inquiry, rather than the narrative it is presented as, by working effect --> cause rather than the other way around. When we begin with effects, we are invited to ask "Why?" and to experience history as inquiry.

The state of the world today is the result of who had technology and who didn't.

Suppose the American Indians had been technologically advanced when Europeans showed up. Imagine Christopher Columbus sailing up to the shores of America and standing on the beach are Geronimo and Sitting Bull with AK-47s.

Of course that begs the question what kind of culture would they have had if men casually walked around with AK-47s?

That is where history fails. It talks about events in sequence without talking about the socialpsychology of the people who make those events possible. How many leaders wouldn't have been able to do things if the people weren't dumb enough to fall for the BS.

Like:

Arab terrorists hijacked a plane in 1994 intending to crash it in Paris. Since Arab terrorists set of a bomb in the WTC in 1993 why wasn't the FAA reinforcing cockpit doors by 1996? Why hasn't the media been jumping on the FAA for the last 3 years.

Technology is an enabler. It enables people to affect other people and therefore HISTORY. How much are we affecting each others thinking and therfore history via the internet?

Who is going to be the Hegemon from ENDER'S GAME? LOL!