Western Civ Daily Jan.25th

Does History Progress? Is an Elephant Really "Better" Than a Mammoth?

History, in my opinion, can progress. In some cases, bad events from the past have helped another bad experience like a war or famine from happening. But for the most part, history does not progress. If it did progress, there would not be wars happening, people dying on account of lack of healthcare and food, and there wouldn't be terrorists. A progression in history would keep bad things from happening in the future, and that is just not happening. There have been civil wars in African countries for hundreds of years, with no progression, or anything which makes it seem that the wars are just getting better. I do agree with the concept like the Hegelian theory that says that everything in history happens because of something in the past. There would be no wars if there was not a reason to fight, which is an event in the past. People wouldn't be dying in Africa if there was not war and famine. In this sense, I do consider history a progression, but it does not mean that it progressed positively.

An elephant is not always "better" than a mammoth. An elephant is related to a mammoth. They are very similar, but no animal is better than another one, especially when they are so similar and related. An elephant is like a newer version of a mammoth, like a mammoth progressing into what a modern day elephant is. The biggest difference between an elephant and a mammoth is that a mammoth has a lot of hair on it and an elephant doesn't have any. This is the largest difference, which isn't even that big of a difference. This shows that an elephant is not "better" than a mammoth. They are just two different animals, and even though an elephant is an example of the evolution of a mammoth, it does not mean an elephant is better.