How to treat the debate on the historical stage of modern world history

1. At present, historians have three main views on the beginning of modern world history:

First, the Dutch bourgeois revolution theory, that is, taking the Dutch revolution as the beginning of modern world history, is based on the simple fact that the Dutch revolution was the first successful bourgeois revolution in world history. However, due to its little influence, many people disagree.

Second, the British bourgeois revolution theory. People who hold this view believe that although the British Revolution was more than a century later than the Dutch Revolution, it was not the first bourgeois revolution, but it largely reflected the requirements of the whole world at that time and had a wide impact on Europe and other parts of the world, so it can be regarded as a sign of the beginning of modern world history.

Third, "1500 theory". More and more people support this view. They believe that in the16th century, that is, before and after the opening of the new air route, an important turning point has taken place in human history. Prior to this, human beings basically lived in isolated areas, and only after the opening of new air routes did all ethnic groups in the world truly merge together.

2. The middle stage of modern world history should be 1760s. Its economic reason lies in the beginning of industrial revolution and the development of huge intercontinental trade. Politically, it is manifested in the arrival of the bourgeois revolution climax; In the field of international relations, Europe has been able to establish its dominant position in the world, while the eastern countries have declined. With the period of1760s as the boundary, the two periods of the modern world history showed completely different characteristics.

Different political parties are bullshit.