More important to history: industrial revolutions or political revolutions?

Chris Ritter

Mr. McGonigal

AP European History

More important to history: industrial revolutions or political revolutions?

In considering whether industrial revolutions or political revolutions have had the greater impact upon history, one must understand the true nature of the question. Does it refer to instantaneous impact upon society? Does it refer to one’s perceptions of historical importance? Does it mean to uncover which has made the most drastic change for humanity as a whole? Surely each of these options is viable in answering the question posed. However, neither “industrial revolution” nor “political revolution” is the best of all possible answers for these questions. Thus, one must consider the matter to a greater depth.

In reference to the first question—the instantaneous results of a revolution—political revolutions are more important to history. As a certain history teacher at Delran High School pointed out, the newspaper headlines of 1794 may be used as an example of this. What did they read? The newest developments during the Reign of Terror, a title assigned to a period during the French Revolution. No one sat down to their breakfast and read about Eli Whitney patenting the cotton gin, nor did intellectuals discuss it in their social clubs, nor did monarchs and legislatures consider its ramifications. Additionally, Britain, Russia, Prussia, and other major nations watched the American Civil War with great interest, yet one doubts any of them gave nearly as much attention to Cyrus McCormick’s steel plow. By these means, one must determine political revolutions more important to history.

The second question posed asks of one’s perception of historical importance. This is a tricky way to assess something, by way of one’s perception, in most cases, however, with regards to history; one may determine this by way of sheer gross of information. Which has more time devoted to it in a non-specialized study of history (i.e. by geography and chronology, rather than subject matter), industrial revolution or political revolution? This again, is political revolution. In studying history, one will repeatedly come across seemingly endless sequential pages dealing with a single political revolution. Any random person could name several ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The second question posed asks of one’s perception of historical importance. This is a tricky way to assess something, by way of one’s perception, in most cases, however, with regards to history; one may determine this by way of sheer gross of information. Which has more time devoted to it in a non-specialized study of history (i.e. by geography and chronology, rather than subject matter), industrial revolution or political revolution? This again, is political revolution. In studying history, one will repeatedly come across seemingly endless sequential pages dealing with a single political revolution. Any random person could name several such revolutions. Yet this writer has been trying nearly in vain for quite a length of time to recall great epochs in technology, as taught in history courses, to find only three: the industrial revolution of the past few centuries, creation of the wheel and simple tools, and the harnessing of fire at the dawn of man, and lastly, the Age of Bronze. Thus, by means of time devoted to its consideration, political revolutions are once again seen as more important to history.

The third question—which of the two options has had the single greatest impact upon humanity—is certainly the question that one must base one’s answer upon. By these means, industrial revolutions are more important to history. Does instaneous impact really matter in the full view of human history? That a nation goes from monarchy to republic does not change how humans, as a whole, live; there has been the shifting supremacy of republics, dictatorships, monarchies, et cetera for thousands of years. Many times, even, the new government installed by political revolutionaries is the same as the old a la George Orwell’s Animal Farm (a parable about the Bolshevik revolution.) Farmers still wake at dawn to tend their crops whoever may be in power, but the way they tend their crops has changed drastically due to industrial revolution. Does one’s perception of history change what actually happened? No, it is entirely subjective. Oliver Cromwell bending England to his will did not in any way lead to the invention of the computer which this very essay is being written upon. Thus, as far as the state of humanity is concerned, industrial revolution is more important to history.

Industrial revolution has changed the way humans live: how they travel, communicate, work, eat, and even think. Political revolution changes the way humans vote and pay taxes. A modern human sent centuries back in time would be more concerned with the lack of what is now considered necessity—medicine, waste disposal, et cetera—or the sight of lepers, than the identity of his fief lord, Consul, or parliamentary representative. Though a political revolution is certainly more sensationalistic, in the long run, all government is interchangeable; as the British rock group The Who once put it, “What about the new boss? The same as the old boss,” or, if one prefers German philosophy, einstürzende neubauten. On the other hand, it is because of industrial revolution that humans exist in the state they do today.