issue48 G-89-互助社-8.9日同主题写作 补交

niuniu1983UID：2117413

Issue48  第9篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
555 words 超时
------题目------
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.
------正文------
In a modern society, people always face the debate over whether key individuals or groups of people play a crucial role in the events and trends in history. Some people maintain that significant events and trends in history were made possibly by famous few, while others argue that groups of people is superior to the key individuals. As far as i an concerned, it is necessary to think about the arguments of both sides.

On the one hand, profound scientific advancement in history almost contributes not to forgettable groups of people, but to famous few. Some famous scientists come into my mind, Copernicus Newton, Edison, Einstein, Galileo and so forth. Their achievements again and again lead us to a new age. For example, Watt who invented stream machine guided us to industrial age; Edison who invented electric bulb leaded people into the age of electricity; Bill Gates who created PC bring us to the age of information. These achievements can only be made by possible key individuals, and because of these accomplishments, those become the famous few.  In sum, the key individuals play a significant role in history particularly in the realm of science.

On the other hand, social political events, social changes and reforms require the mass to participate in.  Many history books treat historical change of as the accomplishments of the key individuals. According to this view, without the participation of the mass, could the great one depending on his own ability to success? For example, when people retrospect China in 20th century, what impress them is only Chairman Mao, who leaded Chinese to emancipate from colony.  Yet, emphasizing Mao as a central figure in this large movement fails to acknowledge the actions of thousands of other individuals. In general, few would disagree that the forgettable groups of people are of little use to contribute to social political events, social changes and reforms. On the contrary, they are the leading actors.

Admittedly, history or social trends are decided by groups of people in major. People often think that great men creative the history, which seems to be true ostensibly. However, true history or social trends can not be altered by any key individual, who just act as a catalyst in such events and trends. For example, as we all know that Abraham Lincoln who extricated slaves from the disaster altered fate of America. If there have been no Lincoln, another "Lincoln" would instead of him play the same role. "We cannot make history," wrote Bismarck (and II paraphrase), taking this to its extreme. "We must wait while it is being made." No one can change history trends, as is amply illustrated by example of Adolph Hitler, who was an infamous tyrant in history. No matter how cruel the means he used to treat the Jews, he still could not change the trends of peace in the world and in the deep heart of everybody as well.

To sum up, the debate is complex one. Without key individuals, society and history will lose its flare and passion; slow down the pace of development of human. Without groups of people, just like the movie losing leading actor, significant events and trends in history could not take place anymore. Thus, the study of history places emphasis not only on key individual, but also on the mass.

[ Last edited by niuniu1983 on 2005-8-11 at 17:40 ]

niuniu1983UID：2117413

要沉了，自己先UP一下, 求互拍

polymathUID：179557

顶一:)下！

tuesday420UID：202475

盖个章晚上来 :D

niuniu1983UID：2117413

tuesday420UID：202475

In a modern society, people always face the debate over whether key individuals or groups of people play a crucial role in the events and trends in history. Some people maintain that significant events and trends in history were made possibly by famous few, while others argue that groups of people is superior to the key individuals. As far as i an concerned, it is necessary to think about the arguments of both sides.

On the one hand, profound scientific advancement in history almost contributes not to(contribute to对象反了) forgettable groups of people, but to famous few. Some famous scientists come into my mind, Copernicus Newton, Edison, Einstein, Galileo and so forth. Their achievements again and again lead us to a new age. For example, Watt who invented stream machine guided us to industrial age; Edison who invented electric bulb leaded people into the age of electricity; Bill Gates who created PC bring us to the age of information. These achievements can only be made by possible key individuals, and because of these accomplishments, those become the famous few.  In sum, the key individuals play a significant role in history particularly in the realm of science.(例子都是从范文来的，不知道有没有雷同的可能啊)
On the other hand, social political events, social changes and reforms require the mass to participate in.  Many history books treat historical change of as the accomplishments of the key individuals. According to this view, without the participation of the mass, could the great one depending(depend) on his own ability to success? For example, when people retrospect China in 20th century, what impress them is only Chairman Mao, who leaded Chinese to emancipate from colony.  Yet, emphasizing Mao as a central figure in this large movement fails to acknowledge the actions of thousands of other individuals. In general, few would disagree that the forgettable groups of people are of little use to contribute to social political events, social changes and reforms. On the contrary, they are the leading actors.

Admittedly, history or social trends are decided by groups of people in major. People often think that great men creative the history, which seems to be true ostensibly. However, true history or social trends can not be altered by any key individual, who just act as a catalyst in such events and trends. For example, as we all know that Abraham Lincoln who extricated slaves from the disaster altered fate of America. If there have been no Lincoln, another "Lincoln" would instead of him play the same role(这句语法有问题). "We cannot make history," wrote Bismarck (and II paraphrase), taking this to its extreme. "We must wait while it is being made." No one can change history trends, as is amply illustrated by example of Adolph Hitler, who was an infamous tyrant in history. No matter how cruel the means he used to treat the Jews, he still could not change the trends of peace in the world and in the deep heart of everybody as well.

最后总结的那段怎么没了？
感觉最后一段在逻辑上怪怪的，到底是支持群众还是支持领袖呢？特定的时候有特定的人出现，还是支持领袖的？

niuniu1983UID：2117413

吃了饭，马上修改，谢谢