The revolutions that took place in 1848 may have been prevented, but would they have eventually taken place no matter what? Many peasants were losing the privileges that they once had because the countryside was becoming more and more privately owned. The population was growing as well which added tension. The economic depression of 1845-1846 did not help matters either. Could leaders have prevented these rebellions from happening.
These reasons are very broad and may not account for the cause of rebellion in each country. These factors, however, may have been prevented and may have not lead to a rebellion. The privileges that peasants once had could have not been taken away from them. The peasants had been able to gain access to village commons and were once able to forage through the forests for firewood. The access to village commons was becoming less and less due to them becoming privately controlled. There were increasing limitations on peasant's rights to forage for firewood. If the wealthy people who controlled the area had not become greedy the peasant's unrest could have been prevented.
This is merely my opinion and may not be the case, but if you keep the majority of the population happy then you should not have them rebelling against you. How long could the peasants hold out and remain under the pressing thumb of the monarchy? The peasants may have still rebelled against there country's leaders, but if the leaders had made drastic changes that benefited the peasants this may have never happened. Things could not just stay the same, because peasants did not really have an easy life. Peasant's rights and opportunities for a better life needed to take a major turn for the better or rebellion would have been inevitable no matter what.

Education

I wanted to touch on an issue that we were discussing on Thursday in class, education. We spoke about education being a huge breakthrough and form of enlightenment for the time. The ideas of Kant, Locke, Jefferson, Voltaire, and Rousseau were new, but not exactly what the people in power wanted. The thought of change did not sit well with them because it meant that they may not have control. I think the same can be said for today and the education that we have in place. The people in power liked that the people they ruled over were not educated. The people not being educated meant that the people in power were not questioned.
Questioning and challenging the people in power is what contributes to the advancement of society. The education system now is all about teaching to the test and there are some teachings who go beyond and actually teach. The students are force fed material that they must regurgitate for a test that is supposed to tell those in charge whether or not the students know the material. Anyone can memorize some things for a test, but it does not mean that they know the material. The education system right now is trying to change or enlighten itself in order to be better suited for the students. The idealist of history, particularly those that pushed to educate the uneducated, gave us what we have today. The people in our society today take what we have for granted.
People did not always have access to education or could not speak out against their ruler. Society has had education for a very long time now and it is time for another enlightenment. We need this enlightenment in order to see more Jefferson's and Voltaire's, so that we can advance the human race even more. Restricting students to only learn what the government says is necessary to survive is ridiculous, we need to educate students in a way that will make them flourish.

Hello HIST 2302