48. "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
The speaker asserts that the most significant events and trends in history were made by the groups of people rather than the famous few, and the recent study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. While this claim seems plausible in the abstract, it ignores many practical problems. I disagree with the speaker for the following reasons.
To begin with, we cannot make such a broad conclusion for the complex issue like the study of history. Whether the study should emphasis on key individuals or groups depends on which field we focus on. Admittedly, in some certain fields, such as business and politics, distinctive groups of people played a more pivotal role than individuals. The foundation of TaoBao, a famous B2C website in China, is a huge commercial success in the history. It even changed the philosophy of consumers -- many people, especially the girls, tend to shopping online instead of going outside. How can TB's founder, Ma Yun, succeed without his elite team, who helped him code the website for each line. I suppose every business success can't just owe to a single person, the team behind him is equally important. Furthermore, it's the same with political. As is known to us, Martine Luther King led the black rights movement. If the blacks hadn't recognized their unequal position in society or they hadn't advocated M.L.King as their leader, there would never be a M.L.King acknowledged to us. But these key individuals can't be replaced by anyone. They are the representative to the groups. On the contrary, when we gaze into the field of science and art, we can find out that the most significant events were undoubtedly made by individuals, who are talented, hardworking and great interested in their own fields.
In addition, to study a group of people of the past is a tough work. Sometimes, we must find a model for them to simplify the research. This embarrassment of history research is caused by two practical facts. First, the historical materials about groups of people are so rare that we can't take advantage of them to operate an in-depth study. As Dr. Suresh, a famous historian, complained to a journalist. "When we want to find more about what this people have done in the history, we got nothing. Their identities have long been forgotten." Second, to study a group of people is troublesome. This kind of research is difficult to go further study. And in all likelihood, it may be superficial from certain points. But if we find a representative (often the key individuals we talked about) for the groups of people, it may be simplified and even able to do in-depth study. These typical figures always have the character shared by groups, which means that study of the certain individual can help us to know more about the groups of people.
Finally, learning about key historical figures inspires us to achieve great success ourselves -- far more so than learning about the contributions of groups of people. They set good models to the society, inducting us to understand the history chiefly in terms of their influence.
To sum up, for the individuals and the groups which are more significant, we can draw different answers in different areas. But we cannot evade the difficulties in learning about the mass, and the key individuals are always on behalf of the groups. So, with few historical exceptions, history is shaped by key individuals who can be a positive model to us, not by nameless, faceless groups. It's the famous few that provide visions of history.