Issue48 2月26日[Big Fish]-By Edwardlzk

edwardlzkUID: 2676637

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: 550

TIME: 01:00:00
DATE: 2010-2-26 20:38:04

The speaker claims that the research of history has put too mush emphasis on studying individuals, however the changes in history does not attribute to these elites of a society, but the groups of people who involves in the revolution. To some extent, I agree with the speaker that history was made by the majority of people, meanwhile, in some fields, such as science and art, the memorable and outstanding achievements, which bring leaps to the certain field, are probably made by numerable few famous individuals.

To begin with, admittedly, big changes or revolutions in history are the result of all these people who devote themselves in instead of few leaders or pioneers who enjoy a high reputation. These leaders are there just to instruct these people what to do, or make major decisions. Without these common people, the decisions or instruction made by leaders are useless. We can not defy the great contribution of the mass when discussing the February Revolution in 1848 in France, nor could we ignore the participation of large amount of American who rose in revolt against colony in the Revolutionary War. It is similarly a truth when referring these big corporations nowadays such as Microsoft, without hundreds of coders working on it, these famous products, such as Windows or Office, will never be published and change our way of living. Can we put the success just to Bill Gates or other brilliant leader? Never.

However, in particular realms of study, the ability or effect of the leader can influence greatly on the result of the research. Science, as an example, which calls for an accumulation of knowledge and the spirit such as perseveration. These characters of certain fields of science such as mathematics and astronomy results in the achievements of some individuals. These achievements results from the years of accumulation and sometimes inspirations or even luck of the researchers instead of co-operation of many common people. For instance, the theory of gravity raised by Newton, the Principle of Relativity put forward by Einstein. Perhaps, some of the inspirations come from their assistants, nevertheless, it is these elites' further study makes the idea works which changes our world in many aspects.

Furthermore, the problems why most historians choose to focus on the leaders or pioneers in a revolution are that it is relatively easier for them to study on, numerous records and references are accessible. Then another question comes that are the study on these leaders and the one on the majority of common people separated in most cases? From where I am standing, the aims of historians to study on the leading individuals lay on the expectation of get a comprehensive and relatively impersonal idea of certain historic incident. These heroes are among the common people as well, almost no differences from others, as the saying goes, 'After all a hero is human'. The story of a hero reveals some fragments of history, a autobiography of a leader contribute another, where hundreds of such fragments of history join together, a brief but comprehensive view towards a certain historic incidence will be made.

All in all, under no circumstance should history overlooks the important of common people. However, by elite-focused study can historians get ample information to get a brief and comprehensive view of history.