issue48 [7\8\9\10]AW作文小组 7.22 第2次作业

atreusUID: 2471951

Issue 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 the groups of people whose identities have long forgotten.

Admittedly the most significant events and trends in history were made possible by the groups of people whose identities have long ignored, whereas the famous few were focused on mainly in the study of history. Due to the several reasons, it is a dilemma that the historians have to lay more emphasis on the individuals than the groups in the study of history.

It is truly said that “the people make the history”. The people are the main body of the history, which was used to record with events with the characteristic of the time and trends of the civilization progress. For example, with the arduous effort and painstaking strive, the black people got rid of the slavery and own the same right as a humility person being treat impartially. We do not deny the great influence and effect that the people have in the history.

However, usually recorded history ends up focusing on certain individuals in events even though there were dozens of other people involved with just as much influence and effect. There are two reasons to explain. On one hand, the famous few mostly can represent the characteristics of the groups. In the case of Napoleon, he had a significant impact on modern European history. The Napoleonic Code was adopted throughout much of Europe and remained in force after Napoleon's defeat. Napoleon himself said: "My true glory is not to have won the battles which will erase the memory of so many victories. But what will live forever, is my Civil Code." Certainly these galaxies in the history attract the historians more attentions, by studying whom to know a lot about the society in that time. On the other hand, the political and social elite: kings, empires, noble celebrities and local magnates had hitherto usually filled history books. Most of their thoughts and action were recorded by contemporaries, while the record about the non-elite was aridly statistical in nature. So the historians have no way to access to these people, there is no choice but ignoring them.

In sum, the individual and the groups are equal importance in the most significant events and trends in history. One possible way out of the dilemma is not only placing emphasis on significant individuals but also taking the study of the common groups as complementary.

[ 本帖最后由 atreus 于 2008-7-22 14:03 编辑 ]

sstonehuUID: 2379503

Admittedly the most significant events and trends in history were made possibly by the groups of people whose identities have long ignored, whereas the famous few were focused on mainly in the study of history. Due to the several reasons, it is a dilemma that the historians have to lay more emphasis on the individuals than the groups in the study of history. (这里似乎有点歧义，论题是讲名人与大众，而不是讲个体与群体.最好给individuals 跟group 加上限定语)

It is truly said that “the people make the history”.  People are the main body of the history, which was used to record with events with the characteristic（character似乎更好） of the time and trends of the civilization progress. For example, with the arduous effort and painstaking strive, the black people got rid of the slavery and own the same right as a humility person being treated impartially. We do not deny the great influence and effect that the people have made in the history.

However, usually recorded history ends up focusing on certain individuals in events even though there were dozens of other people involved with just as much influence and effect. There are two reasons  for this. On one hand, the famous few mostly can represent the characteristics of the groups. In the case of Napoleon, he had a significant impact on modern European history. The Napoleonic Code was adopted throughout much of Europe and remained in force after Napoleon's defeat. Napoleon himself said: "My true glory is not to have won the battles which will erase the memory of so many victories. But what will live forever, is my Civil Code." Certainly these galaxies in the history attract the historians more attentions, by studying whom to know a lot about the society in that time. On the other hand, the political and social elite: kings, empires, noble celebrities and local magnates had hitherto usually filled history books. Most of their thoughts and action were recorded by contemporaries, while the record about the non-elite was aridly statistical in nature.

So the historians have no way to access to these people, there is no choice but ignoring them.In sum, the individual and the groups are equal importance in the most significant events and trends in history. One possible way out of the dilemma is not only placing emphasis on significant individuals but also taking the study of the common groups as complementary. 第二段的语气，尤其是最后一句do not deny给人的感觉似乎是“我们不否认是人民大众在创造历史”这一论断完全是为了之后的转折，而不是为了说明同时需要对大众进行研究来作为补充。所以最后一段中提出的解决方法就有些说服力不足。建议在第二段中对这个解决方法给出铺垫。

总体感觉还不错，结构比较清楚。

[ 本帖最后由 sstonehu 于 2008-7-23 19:12 编辑 ]