[i习作temp] Issue48 [GREAW小组] 第5次作文_少数与多数 [复制链接]

woshiwm
UID：2337326

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 89
注册时间: 2007-5-10
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-10 20:49:39 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ISSUE48 - "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."
WORDS: 424       TIME: 00:45:00       DATE: 2007-8-10 15:51:11
Outline: 1. 同意作者观点
   2. 让步，说明历史也需要大众创造
   3. 但是创造历史的大众是在少数精英领导下完成的
   4. 研究少数精英更方便了解历史
   5. 在科学界，大部分的研究都是由个人完成的
   6. 总结
Who should we emphasis when it comes to history the famous few or groups pf people who have been forgotten for a long time? Is it too much emphasis on individual when we come to history? As far as I'm concerned, in most cases, it is "famous few" who did much more important contributions to our history than groups of people.
Admittedly, the history is not only composed only by a few of famous persons but also the masses. Many common people whose identities are neglected also contribute to the society and the history, though sometimes very little. For example, the Great Wall, which is the pride as well as the symbol of our nation, meandering for thousands of kilometers, is constructed by hundreds of thousand people in ancient time. The pyramid, another miracle of on the earth, is constructed by a lager number of slaves as well.
However, those miracle architectures are almost instituted based on the ruler or monarch's egos and wills. In this sense, groups of people are always rely on the "famous few" to contribute to history. It is obvious in politics, especially for war, which needs large quantities of people to participate in. It is not likely that there is a party full of power and influence but without a leader. Take Chairman Mao as an example. Though we all admit that our county, People's Republic China, is established through a long time hard working by a whole nation's effort, it is equally important that Mao's leadership contributes much to the nation’s success.
Besides, studying history require much detailed information in which case there are much more difficulties in studying the mass by investigating each of them. We cannot obtain original records about these persons because of their commonplace. In contrast, it is somehow convenient to study those “famous few” as they are more accessible. They are paid more attention and many records about them which reflect the environment and situation at their time can be easily searched. With these records, we can achieve more authentic history.
In addition, in the field of science, most discoveries and inventions are contributed by individuals. Einstein’s theory of relativity, Newton’s Principia and so on are all showing that it is those individuals that drive our history quickly.
As I discussed above, it is not too much to emphasis on individuals in the study of history. Though I acknowledge that groups of people did lots to history, the "famous few" is the more pivotal in making significant events and trends in history possible.

回应
0

使用道具举报

anchorite2006
UID：2304956

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 239
注册时间: 2007-2-17
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2007-8-10 21:13:27 |只看该作者

改错了就骂我吧，呵呵

Who should we emphasis when it comes to history the famous few or groups pf(of) people who have been forgotten for a long time? Is it too much emphasis on individual when we come to history? As far as I'm concerned, in most cases, it is "famous few" who did much more important contributions to our history than groups of people. Admittedly, the history is not only composed only(可以删去么) by a few of famous persons but also the masses. Many common people whose identities are neglected also contribute to the society and the history, though sometimes very little. For example, the Great Wall, which is the pride as well as the symbol of our nation（这是写给老美看的这么说不暴露身份了么，呵呵）, meandering for thousands of kilometers, is constructed by hundreds of thousand（hundreds of thousand of people好一点） people in ancient time. The pyramid, another miracle of on the earth, is constructed by a lager number of slaves as well. However, those miracle architectures are almost instituted based on the ruler or monarch's egos and wills. In this sense, groups of people are always rely on（rely on 换成through the leading of行不行？） the "famous few" to contribute to history. It is obvious in politics, especially for（in） war, which needs large quantities of people to participate in. It is not likely that there is a party full of power and influence but without a leader. Take Chairman Mao as an example（不要举毛主席为例，你太爱国了，万一那考官老爸死在朝鲜，你不就……不要暴露，下面类似）. Though we all admit that our county, People's Republic China, is established through a long time hard working by a whole nation's effort, it is equally important that Mao's leadership contributes much to the nation’s success. Besides, studying history require much detailed information in which case there are much more difficulties in studying the mass by investigating each of them. We cannot obtain original records about these persons because of their commonplace. In contrast, it is somehow convenient to study those “famous few” as they are more accessible. They are paid more attention and many records about them which reflect the environment and situation at their time can be easily searched. With these records, we can achieve more authentic history. In addition, in the field of science, most discoveries and inventions are contributed by individuals. Einstein’s theory of relativity, Newton’s Principia and so on are all showing that it is those individuals that drive our history quickly. As I discussed above, it is not too much to emphasis on individuals in the study of history. Though I acknowledge that groups of people did lots to history, the "famous few" is the（删去the） more pivotal in making significant events and trends in history possible.

举的例子太中国化了听说不太好，
多用美国人了解的事例。有些句子读起来不是太顺，可能是我没语感。
思路明确，赞！大家一起努力！
什么地方说错了记得提醒我，谢啦！

使用道具举报