球拍，ISSUE 48

zhouhickUID: 2768760

提纲：
1.我们对历史人物的学习并不是只注重个人，而是只能注重个人。
2.我们并不是忽略了多数对历史有贡献的人，而是用另外少数人来反映出他们。
3.如果我们记录多数人的身份的话会怎么样。


In fact, speaker's assertion contains two respects. The first is that the study of history takes too much concern about individuals. The second seems to be that the most informed events and trends are made groups of people. And I disagree with the first part and basically support the second.



On the one hand, placing too much emphasis on individuals is truth that almost every significant event and trend in history just mentions few of people. Therefore, what can we observe without individuals whose contributions largely overweigh others in certain events? However, in my view, it is not the fault of our ancestors who recorded, and they did not intend to forget those groups of people who help contribute to the events, and our precedents actually can not record all of people that have participated in the events for the reason of the short of information and myriad human identifications. Consider, for example, the Civil War dominated by Lincoln and the sum of participators and leaders almost amount to 100 thousands. Do you wish the historians of that time recorded all soldiers' name? Absolutely it is a joke. Moreover, they not only can not enter zones of war to see the circumstances but also lack of technology to trace one person who just took part in, even not to say recording their behaviors. Therefore, discovering individuals appears to be only resources of getting information from certain events and to reflect behaviors and psycho of many people at that time.


Turning to the second part, it is indisputably true that big events and trends in history made by groups of people. After all, they were one part of the history whose contributions, nevertheless, are not very huge but they supplied such specific information to huge historical spool. Even though their identities can not be found and might be masked by river of history, their contributions to the world are never destroyed. In addition, their contributions and identities have never been forgotten but deeply etched on people's minds.
Thus, how could we know their accomplishments without the information related to few individuals who have led them? Not only the identities of few people might be lost, even the events will be forgot. Consider Independent War that saved America from English, and its main creator Washington have led large masses of people. What will happen if we lost the information about Washington?


On the contrast, try to think about the results if we recorded every person's information and identity to support our study. The unification and generalization of such huge information seems to be extremely difficult for historians, and ultimately caused many mistakes in historical materials, such as misnomers, wrong locations, time's errors and so forth, which largely influenced on our extrapolation to historical events and trends. Moreover, some people with harmful reasons who tried to disturb the historical information by manufacturing fake names, modifying times and locations of the events will bring about more difficult problems for modern historians. Therefore, this is not willing for us to emphasize groups of people, but it is that we use the best means to synthesis all respects of difficulties.


In sum, I can figure out the speaker's opinion which is partly true. When it comes to the study of individuals, the records, from which our study’s resource derives, are the combination of previously countless historians thus, it is hardly for us to say that we should not place too much emphasizes on famous few, and it is true that big events and trends of history are made by groups of people.