People in Africa were already slaves; they were made slaves by black people.
The first legally recognized owner of slaves, under common law, in what would become the United States was Anthony Johnson, a black man.
Until Anthony Johnson, white people purchased African slaves and treated them instead as indentured servants, who would become freed men with their own land after a certain number of years of service; white men, such as the Irish, were also indentured servants in this way. White people were the last ones into the slave trade, and white people were then the ones who ultimately ended slavery.
So, yes. There was slavery, but you never get taught the whole story.
It sounds like you're trying to lay all the blame on slavery on black people. Yes, there was slavery in Africa, but the practice expanded greatly because of white Americans. Also, saying Anthony Johnson was the first legally recognized slaveowner is tricky because his case against a slave was the first ever brought to court even though he was not the first slave owner. There is plenty of evidence of slavery before Johnson.
My Surface Pro 3 dynamically figures out the time left. It will show me how much time I have left if I continue to use the computer in the same way. Light work naturally will show more time left than playing a video game.
That's exactly how it works on the Mac. It's frustrating that people can't understand that browsing the web and then switching to a videogame will change the amount of time remaining. I love the feature and will hate to see it go.
I get that.
What I don't get is why that requires Minecraft. It seems counter-productive due to complexity. A good fraction of people don't have very good 3d imagination and would finding a top-down 2d world much easier to comprehend.
Normally I would agree with that statement. In the past I tried 2D systems such as GameMaker and other block-like languages. I tried Alice the past two years which ventured into 3D. The difference with Minecraft is the kids already know it. I took a poll of the kids on the first day of class and only 2 out of 60 had never played Minecraft. That helps quite a bit with the learning curve so we can just focus on the logic. Their final grades were also much better this year and attribute a lot of that to the engagement Minecraft provided.
They could have legislated minimum efficiencies but NO
They DID legislate based on efficiency. The law states that future incandescents can come to market if they are more energy efficient. Wikipedia
Pair programming is how you engage in affirmative action without having to spell it out in school policy. You pair up the students who can't/won't succeed with the students who can and will succeed. The successful student will do all the work to keep up their GPA and the shit student can coast his/her way to a passing grade. All while avoiding the political minefield that would come with forcing more girls, more people of color, or more of whatever group is the cause de jour into programming through social promotion and affirmative action.
That's pretty cynical. I use pair programming in my classes, but the kids can choose their pairs. It's not meant to give kids better grades. In fact, I usually only use it for tasks I won't be grading. It's meant so the kids can work with someone else and bounce ideas off each other to see a different perspective and hopefully gain a better understanding of CS. The kids have to take turns on the keyboard so even if one kid is a much better programmer, they are forced to talk about what to do instead of just typing all the code themselves in silence.
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.