The Argument Against: Is History Marching Towards Progress?

The idea that history inevitably leads to better and better circumstances is an addictively optimistic one. It has its uses, and it’s often the way people are first taught history or the way history is portrayed in mass media. This simpler, more optimistic narrative can be useful for engaging people in the subject at first. It’s far easier to think, “They used to do what? How ridiculous!” than to confront the depressing realisation of “Why has nothing changed?” or even “How did we go so wrong?”. But just because those perspectives are harder to face doesn’t make the ‘march of progress’ view the more accurate way to view history.

If you look at history from a surface level, Western, perspective there are some arguments for the progress view. For instance, people can now use planes to travel the world, and we can now perform complex medical procedures such as heart transplants. However, these points, although positive, do not provide evidence for an overarching argument that everything is getting better. In fact, this kind of argument ignores the lived realities (both modern and historical) of the majority of people.  

Firstly, as noted above, the idea that history is a story of inevitable progress is a very Western-focused idea.  The traditional history of the west – and in particular of Europe – is one of linear progress. Going from serfdom to international trade, to industrialisation, to the rise of commercial technologies – all whilst living standards and life expectancy improved. This is already not a true history of the west, but it becomes even worse when you consider the impacts on the rest of the world. 

Western progress often came (and arguably still comes) at the expense of the lives and living standards of many global populations. This was particularly the case during European colonialism (which contributed to the boom of international trade and industrialisation). For example, the ‘discovery’ and colonisation of the Americas, which enriched both European pockets and diets, destroyed the civilisations that had existed there previously. The introduction of European diseases caused widespread death and weakness amongst the Indigenous populations of South America and when combined with military action and violence from Spanish colonising forces, led to the deaths of millions. It also destroyed the complex and sophisticated cities and cultures of civilisations such as the Aztec empire with its tiered and floating cities. Things did not get better for the Indigenous people who survived the initial violence and disease. Many were forced into slavery both by colonisers and rival indigenous groups. The vast majority did not survive long as slaves on the new colonial plantations. 

It was this low survival rate of their Indigenous workforce, that led colonisers to begin transporting enslaved people from Africa. Although slave trades had previously existed, this new transatlantic trade of enslaved people was on a far, far larger scale.  Approximately 12.5 million people were transported between 1501 and 1866. This system was incredibly brutal and dehumanising, and although survival rates were higher for enslaved Africans on plantations they were still subjected to horrific conditions and through incredibly demanding work which led to many deaths. Racialised beliefs about Africans as inferior and through their enslavement, as commodities led to further abuse for those who survived the forced labour. It seems incredibly difficult therefore to label the change that led to this enslaving and brutalisation of millions of people as a progressive change. 

These are only two connected examples of the vast degree of damage that Western advancement inflicted on many other peoples and cultures, but they still work to show that the idea of history as a story of linear, positive progress has often been the opposite of the truth when viewing history from a non-Western perspective.  

Even within Western perspectives the movement of history has not always been positive for all. In the west, women’s history is often viewed in a manner of linear progress going from oppressed to emancipated through gradual legal and societal change, but this isn’t a truly accurate history of women’s freedoms in history. In fact, there have been points in history where there has been more regression than progress for the status and freedoms of women. One of the most infamous recent examples of this was the reversal of Roe v. Wade in the USA in 2022. This has significantly restricted women’s bodily autonomy in the USA, and in some cases also put women and their babies in danger – far from being a sign of progress for many women. This again is far from the only instance of regression but is a useful example to demonstrate how even for half of the Western population this assumption of constant progress is far from reality. 

Women are not the only ones within Western society for whom this narrative isn’t reflective. The working class, within whom most people in history would’ve been categorised, have also been excluded by this narrative. The assumption that living conditions have improved for each generation has rarely been guaranteed throughout history for the working classes. Although – similarly to women’s history – the typical story that is told of gradual liberation from cruel conditions does have some truth to it, there have been many periods of regression which are left out of this narrative. For example, the positive impacts of international trade in Britain were fuelled not only by colonialism but by the oppression of the working class. Just as Britain started to trade in the Americas, peasants were cut off from using common lands and from subsistence farming on local gentry owned land as it was enclosed to use for more internationally profitable livestock farming. This effectively cut peasants off from their traditional food sources, they could not grow their own food or forage and hunt on common land. This limited access to food forced them into selling their labour to afford food or land of their own.  

This was not the only landmark of ‘progress’ that disadvantaged the poor. Industrialisation – often a point used to show the progress of technology that improved economies, commodities, and sometimes living conditions – caused harm to the poor who worked in, and lived near, its factories and mines. To the extent that life expectancy for working class people during the Industrial Revolution in England actually decreased. The mechanisation of work under industrialisation also gave them less power in the labour market, in a similar way to which AI is now threatening the jobs of customer service workers. So, for the vast majority of the population who must work to survive (both in the past and present) history is as likely to bring regression as it is to bring progress. 

It seems ridiculous to support the idea that history is always moving towards progress when this is true for only a fraction of the global population. Especially when this is not just a historical reality but a modern one too. The impacts of climate change, for instance, disproportionately impact the marginalised groups referenced in this article. This tells us that progress remains an unstable promise for the majority of the world’s population.  

Overall, it is as easy to argue that history is always moving towards regression as it is to argue that it is always moving towards progress. Now that is not to say I think history is a movement of constant regression. Both of these narratives are inherently flawed, erasing vast chunks of history and experiences. They also both encourage people to be passive due to the inevitability of outcomes they predict. While this might seem easier- especially when power structures leave the majority of the world without truly free choices - it remains important to try to mould our own histories to try and make the present and future better places. Therefore, the most accurate and helpful approach to history is a balanced one that allows for instances of both regression and progress. 

Bibliography 

Angus, Ian, The War Against the Commons: Dispossession and Resistance in the Making of Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2023), pp. 11–13. 

Crane-Kramer, Gillian, and Jo Buckberry, ‘Changes in Health with the Rise of Industry’, International Journal of Paleopathology, 40 (2023), 99–102. 

‘Estimates: Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade’, Slave Voyages, available at: https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates/ [accessed 27 October 2025]. 

Fitzpatrick, Tony, Climate Change and Poverty: A New Agenda for Developed Nations (Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2014), pp. 2–3. 

Gemmill, Alison, and others, ‘US Abortion Bans and Infant Mortality’, JAMA, 333 (2025), 1315–1323. 

‘Maternal Mortality in the United States After Abortion Bans’, Gender Equity Policy Institute, April 2025, available at: https://thegepi.org/maternal-mortality-abortion-bans/ [accessed 27 October 2025]. 

Newson, Linda A., ‘The Demographic Collapse of Native Peoples of the Americas, 1492–1650’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 81 (1993), 247–288. 

Research, Action and Policy: Addressing the Gendered Impacts of Climate Change, ed. by Margaret Alston and Kerri Whittenbury (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012). 

Richards, John F., The Unending Frontier: An Environmental History of the Early Modern World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 390–393. 

Van Tuerenhout, Dirk R., The Aztecs: New Perspectives (London: Bloomsbury, 2005), pp. 201–204.