issue48 第一篇issue,望大家指正，必会拍！！

chris_zhUID: 2101887

When we talk about history, there must be many famous figures that come to our minds first. At the same time, we can also read some assess toward these people that “they created the history”. But what I want to argue is although they were paramount important in many events, they were not the whole story.
Undeniably, these famous people did have their significant positions in our history. Without Thomas Edison, people would delay their time to go into the bright world. By the same token, how could people transport all over the world so conveniently if it were not for the invention of brother Wrights? There are thousands of examples like that to convince us that we should never ignore the outstanding achievements those great figures had approached. They were the pharos of our human beings, and opened a door of brand-new realm for us.
On the other hand, in some other events, the famous figure was just one of the factors in the whole course of history. They became famous because they were the leaders, presidents, or initiators of movements. But what if there were not so many citizens, soldiers to support and cooperate with them? Taking D-day as an example, when studying history, people always remember the great leadership and charisma of Eisenhower , and the Allied forces’ unbelievable military coup. But how many of us have ever considered the soldiers, their valiant behaviors, their real patriotism that reflected in this event? Without these almost unknown heroes, could this action succeeded? I doubt. When it comes to arts, people often describe many great masters like Van gogh, Picasso as the iconoclasts, they were not be accepted by the contemporary artists in that in those artists’ opinions, the paintings were weird, breaking all the basic rules that every painter should conform to. Then you can conclude that these great artists became famous all by themselves. However, if there did not exist any previous models, no so called “rules”, chances are that there were no “icon” at all! In this circumstances, how did Van goghs “broke”? Could they be immortalized? Probably no. Hence, even the greatest artists should thanks to the artists who were not so famous as themselves but set some “regulations” in their fields.
Last but not least, too much emphasis on individuals will undermine the students to have a comprehensive understanding of our history. If students only know “George Washington” and “independent war” but not the background of America at that time, or the causes of it , nor the influence it had brought to American people. Thus, those two names become meaningless. After all, what we want students to know indeed is not that superficial, we hope them to see the “big picture”, to understand the purpose of study history is, in general, to inspire us to achievements, to help us avoid costly mistakes, and to help us simply appreciate that in most cases we’ve been down this road before.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-20 at 00:30 ]

staralwaysUID: 193479

When we talk about history, there must be many famous figures that come to our minds first. At the same time, we can also read some assesses toward these people that “they created the history”. But what I want to argue is although they were paramount important [of paramount importance] in many events, they were not the whole story. [这句话表明立场，不错。]

Undeniably, these famous people did have their significant positions in our history. Without Thomas Edison, people would delay [put off] their time to go into the bright world. By the same token, how could people transport all over the world so conveniently if it were not for the invention of brother Wrights [the Wrights Brother]? There are thousands of examples like that to convince us that we should never ignore the outstanding achievements those great figures had approached. They were the pharos of our human beings, and opened a door of brand-new realm for us.

On the other hand, in some other events, the famous figure was just one of the factors in the whole course of history. They became famous because they were the leaders, presidents, or initiators of movements. But what if there were not so many citizens, soldiers to support and cooperate with them? Taking D-day as an example, when studying history, people always remember the great leadership and charisma of Eisenhower, and the Allied forces’ unbelievable military coup. But how many of us have ever considered the soldiers, their valiant behaviors, their real patriotism that reflected in this event? Without these almost unknown heroes, could this action succeeded? [可以具体描述一下伤亡情况，或者当时的战时状况。] I doubt. When it comes to arts, people often describe many great masters like Van gogh, Picasso as the iconoclasts, they were not be [多余，去掉。] accepted by the contemporary artists in that in those artists’ opinions, the paintings [of those figures] were weird, breaking all the basic rules that every painter should conform to. Then you can conclude that these great artists became famous all by themselves. However, if there did not exist any previous models, no so called “rules”, chances are that there were no “icon” at all! In this circumstances, how did Van goghs “broke”? Could they be immortalized? Probably no. Hence, even the greatest artists should thanks to the artists who were not so famous as themselves but set some “regulations” in their fields. [感觉后半部分在讲艺术的时候，没有把大众的作用体现出来。譬如，按照段落里的“艺术标准”的形成，那么可以把大众联系进去：大众的审美观念以及对于艺术作品的欣赏和评论对于艺术、绘画标准的形成起到了很大的作用。然后再接着写凡高他们“可以有惯例能够去打破”。另外，觉得在两个例子里，大众的所起的作用并不完全相同，是不是可以分开来写？]

Last but not least [觉得issue里不要出现argument里常出现的标志词为好。], too much emphasis on individuals will undermine the students to have a comprehensive understanding of our history. If students only know “George Washington” and “Independent war” but not the background of America at that time, or the causes of it, nor the influence it had brought to American people. Then, those two names become meaningless. [后面这部分是结尾吗？]After all, what we want students to know indeed is not that superficial, we hope them to see the “big picture”, to understand the purpose of study history is, in general, to inspire us to achievements, to help us avoid costly mistakes, and to help us simply appreciate that in most cases we’ve been down this road before.

chris_zhUID: 2101887

非常感谢斑竹的修改！还是有不少启发
结尾确实没有写单独的一段总结，以后会改进。
第一篇就能得到斑竹的修改，以后一定会继续加油！：）