- 最后登录
- 2012-12-20
- 在线时间
- 56 小时
- 寄托币
- 208
- 声望
- 9
- 注册时间
- 2010-2-2
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 162
- UID
- 2759255
- 声望
- 9
- 寄托币
- 208
- 注册时间
- 2010-2-2
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
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: 1 TIME: 00:00:27 DATE: 2010-2-20 21:56:38
With the advent of the new millennium, the focus of history study gradually distracts from the
overemphasis of the "famous few" to the masses whose identities have long been forgotten. To some
extent, it reveals the populace-oriented rather than the elite-centered method in the history research.
Feasible in some degrees, however, such kind of trend needs more scrutiny lest it should go to the
other extreme.
Admittedly, the renowned individuals are the key characters in the history, who set into motion a
sequence of the watershed historical events. For instance, when talking about the Europe in the 19th
century, Napoleon certainly occurs to us. Rising to his prominence under the First French Republic
and successfully repulsing the attacks that are set up by the Coalitions arrayed against France,
Napoleon Bonaparte shaped the politics in Europe in the early 19th century through his outstanding
military tactics along with exceptional political strategies. Additionally, in the realm of laws, he also
propelled the establishment of the Napoleonic Code, which laid the administrative and judicial
foundation for much of the Western Europe. For that matter, there is no denying that it is Napoleon,
the "famous few", who has made possible the trend of history. Thus, it may be unfair unless enough
emphasis has been placed on them.
However, since long time ago when we attributed the feats, which is too much for them to bear, to the
monarch or the emperor, we are prone to portray the famous individuals as nearly omnipotent in the
authoritative recordings of history. Nonetheless, it is unjust for them to deserve all the feats regardless
of considerable efforts made by the populace, who are ignoble or even nameless in the recordings
while do provide the impetus for history. Hardly can we depict the fate of Napoleon without the
French Revolution set on by the general public who assaulted the Bastille and declared their wish for
equal rights of citizen. It is through the endeavour of the groups to subvert the House of Bourbon that
the "famous few" gained the victory of the revolution. Without the general public and their efforts, the
pattern of history in the 19th century will probably remain unchanged, which still suffers feudalism
and inequality.
Even though it is legitimate for us to pay attention to the populace who are always ignored by us, we
must be circumspect about going to the other extreme. Undue emphasis on the general public will
undermine the paramount influence of the "famous few" and obscure the main track of the history to
some extent. Such should be keep in mind that groups rally only when incited and instigated by the
famous individuals. That is, the influence rendered by the general public spontaneously is somewhat
limited when compared to that of the famous individuals. In this sense, we should not overly extol the
role of the masses in sacrifice of the "famous few".
In sum, we should strike a balance between the groups of people and the notable individuals in the
study of history. Only in such way can we create an apt image of the mankind history with regard to
the indelible feats and contributions of them. |
|