【big fish】2月26日issue48---by Jenius

jenius4869UID: 2659821

issue No.048
"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."


Which one plays a more significant role in the development of history? The speaker indicates that we should places more emphasis on groups of ordinary people rather than the famous few, I partly agree with the speaker's proposition, but on the other hand, sometimes prominent few do have much more influence to the historical trends which renders it reasonable to pay more attention to them.



Turning first to the development and advancement of history, it is not hard to detect that every revolution of the history cannot completed without both the efforts of minority and participation of large amount of people. The American Civil War would be a typical and actual incident to illustrate my idea. As we know, Araham Lincoln who successfully freed slaveries and preserved the union of U.S. in this war , also revealed his great leadership. His contribution to this country not only recognized and recorded by numerous historians but also the people over the world. But when we consider the people who took part in this war, those who gave up their family, occupation, those who would like to devote even their lives to protect the integrity of the country, are they also can be called great people? Without them, the military would not be exist, the appoints would not be carried into execution, the war would not success and the history may be overwritten in another way.



Therefore, to fully observe and deliberate some significant events and trends in history, we cannot ignore both of the two factors. However, why the study of history always places so much emphasis on individual? Is individual seems to be more important than ordinary people? From my perspective, the remarkable individuals, as a matter of fact, worth more attention of ours. Firstly, in the case that may not need the participation of general people. For example, Zhao Gao, who played an instrumental role in the downfall of Qin Dynasty of China by persuading Hu Hai, the oldest son of the emperor, to falsify the emperor's will after his death. The public that time known nothing about it, not even mention to oppose it. Therefore, in some of the historical incidents, the ordinary people hardly act as a significant part as the few do and it is reasonable we overlook their position in historical study.



Even in the cases of cases which involve the endeavors of those whose identities are easily forgotten, the trends of history is mostly determined by famous few. It is always said, the people who get the support of the people will win the world. So if the proposition of an individual appeals to the most people, or the trend of the history, it is undoubted he will success in the end. Vice versa, he who lose the trust of public will definitely be opposed by others and gain nothing but failure. Therefore, those who plays an essential role in history could determine the development of history to some extent for they choose to stand out and let their voice be heard.



In conclusion, although the advancement of our history is determined by both the individuals and a myriad of ordinary people most of the time, placing more emphasis on individual can help us understand the progress of history. Because all of them could be like the stations of a bus route, pointing and reminding us a significant location of history.





565words

I really do not know if I present a logical statement.