issue 48 by tequlawine

tequilawineUID: 2702008

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: 359          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-2-19 22:01:49





The assertion is that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals, which is maily basing on that most important events and so forth are made by scads of people instead of famous few. But to combine them as an cause_effect relationship, which is obivious for us that the two sentences don't have, in order to convince us, it seems a little bit  dizzy and confusing.





What kind of individual does the historians put too much emphasis on, and what' the difference to delve into one guy or the most of others, at last why cann't we just do our research of history from that, mainly because the latter reason?





To figure it out, i think we should get started from individuals first. Illustrated by our author's assumption that individuals often means someone that stands for the important events, in other words, they play their roles in them as some leaders or something like that. But i reckon that what historians really care about is not what kinds of status they acquainted in this historic incidents, but what kind of characters he featured in this big shoot. Imagine that you watch a movie how about Avatar, block_buster arond the world for instance, what really intriges you when you saw it, the ups and downs plot of the cinemactor or the surroundings(eg some others irrelevant guys or environments)? Answer is obvious. They are the key or essence that leads the story happen, how could we to dig into history of the events without them, and i think it is never too much concentration on them.





Curious it will be to elict the most tricky question what is the difference between the scads of people and famous personages. Just owing to that they are not  leaders on the stage or something else. Thoughts linger in my head. I think they are no difference between them, at least at the level of history constrution, they are the same important as you can not live on either water or food but both of them. In some sense, the two distinctive majorities share most in common. Yeah as what i compared before, they are on the same stage and exerts their own efforts to this play. They have same costume style, same language, same background and so forth. So we can get one rearing from each other, it's not about some special, it's public own personalities. To focus on one, it is just more easy for us to depict the outline of the view centuries proceeding us, without any intentions to give someone more privileges to express us, whereas it's us who misunderstand what the real goal of that.




After intervening the connection between some individuals and common populaces, i think it is more easy for us to understand that they exists not only in the big or eminent events but also penetrating into everyday life_consisting of longevity history. I also have another stance to stress. The positions don't stand still, sometimes or always, they transmute into each other. For example, it's like a team work, for different goals, you choose different one as your leader to make your conjunct interest to come true on the reason that everyone has his own strong suit.
Given that complicated relation between individual and mass, it's hard to easily to say that too much emphasis on individuals or only important events involving in common people-both of them are a little bit unilateral, and what really needs our attention is that if we put much more personal characters on individuals over the common one.

plukaUID: 2721764

The assertion is that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals, which（指代什么？如果指代study，紧跟其后。） is maily（拼写错误） basing on that most important events and so forth（冗赘） are made by scads of people instead of famous few.【 But to combine（connect） them（这个指代啥？） as（with) an cause_effect relationship, which（代词作主语） is obivious for us that（从句作主语）（于是这句话有了两个主语……） the two sentences don't have, in order to convince us, it seems a little bit  dizzy and confusing.】这句话的语法有严重问题！！句式杂糅，插入语和从句结构归属不明，代词的指代——文意晦涩了.主题句一定要清晰！！

What kind of individual does the historians put too much emphasis on, and what' the difference to delve（of delving) into one guy or the most of others, at last why cann't we just do our research of history from that, mainly because the latter reason? 

To figure it out, i think we should get started from individuals first. Illustrated by our author's assumption that individuals often means（啥叫means?“个人”跟“大人物”还是有区别的） someone that stands for the important events, in other words, they play their roles in them as some leaders or something like that. But i reckon that（私以为把后续论证建立在个人的推测上不是很有说服力。就算要基于这个理由，也可以省略掉I reckon之类，显得更加客观。） what historians really care about is not what kinds of status they acquainted in this historic incidents, but what kind of characters he featured in this big shoot. Imagine that you watch a movie how about Avatar, block_buster arond the world for instance, what really intriges you when you saw it, the ups and downs plot of the cinemactor or the surroundings(eg some others irrelevant guys or environments)? Answer is obvious. They are the key or essence that leads the story happen, how could we to dig into history of the events without them, and i think it is never too much （过于绝对。这里就断言never too much，那后文该怎么继续呢？)concentration on them. 论证的断层：作者说，历史学家因为觉得大人物吸引人所以研究他更多，之后举例，之后总结曰，never too much concentration on them。但是！为啥never too much，难道就因为他们给我们带来了好玩的故事，提供了有趣的娱乐？建议指出更重大的对社会的影响。

Curious it will be to elict the most tricky question what is the difference between the scads of people and famous personages. Just owing to that they are not  leaders on the stage or something else. Thoughts linger in my head. I think they are no difference between them, at least at the level of history constrution, they are the same important as you can not live on either water or food but both of them. In some sense, the two distinctive majorities share most in common. Yeah as what i compared before, they are on the same stage and exerts their own efforts to this play. They have same costume style, same language, same background and so forth. So we can get one rearing from each other, it's not about some special, it's public own personalities. To focus on one, it is just more easy for us to depict the outline of the view centuries proceeding us, without any intentions to give someone more privileges to express us, whereas it's us who misunderstand what the real goal of that.谈论英雄没啥特殊的。私以为关于电影的比喻不妥，主角和背景人物真的那么相似吗？就算服装相似，举动相似吗地位相似吗性格相似吗使命和权力相似吗？电影里要突出的往往是主角的不同，而非混同。而且读了这一段再联系上一段末句，就会疑问：如果说英雄没啥特殊的，那干嘛还在上段说怎么关注他们都不过分？

After intervening the connection between some individuals and common populaces, i think it is more easy for us to understand that they exists not only in the big or eminent events but also penetrating into everyday life_consisting of longevity history. I also have another stance to stress. The positions don't stand still, sometimes or always, they transmute into each other. For example, it's like a team work, for different goals, you choose different one as your leader to make your conjunct interest to come true on the reason that everyone has his own strong suit. 
Given that complicated relation between individual and mass, it's hard to easily to say that too much emphasis on individuals or only important events involving in common people-both of them are a little bit unilateral, and what really needs our attention is that if we put much more personal characters on individuals over the common one.
首要的缺陷——语言！最基本的，语法。坦白说，有很多句子真的很难看懂，句子结构的混乱十分阻碍文意的表达，务必重视！！

接着，论证问题，全文的观点不是很清晰，甚至有自相矛盾之处。发展也偏空洞。
限时是很难的，加油啊~

tequilawineUID: 2702008

after seeing what the flaws existing in my esssay, i do learn a lot from it. and i wanna make some modification of it.
first point, the individuals in some big events resembles needle to knit the net, or the activator without which the incidents may be put off , sometimes even not existing.

secondly, what i mainly state is that with no matter how hollow or divine historians describe the individuals, they share the most common things with the mass, in other words, to see a one into a world.

at last, the role they played in history are not static, but always changeable. now maybe the one is leader, then the other is the leader. time and enviroment choose the one, deeper considering, history choose the right one on each other own.

at last, we can figure it out so easily that the assumption that mentioned first is not supportive with some stigma in it.