ISSUE48~求拍~3.26机考

evaeva0330UID: 2773544

ISSUE 48
The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most signigicant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten. 字数：616
限时1h未完成后修改

Government and all walks of life have made a lot efforts to bolster and develop the historical study, which has not only help us to know more about the past, but also support the development of our future. When it comes to the study tendentiousness between individuals and groups, there seems to be general phenomenon and regulation that the study of history has overemphasized individuals and ignored the groups study. Is it true, and should historian and all sections of community change to consider more about groups’ roles than individuals’ in the history? My answer is, not exactly.

Admittedly, groups of people have played an important role as we all know in changes and development of every sections of history. Without strong supports of a group, no matter how significant and distinguished a person is, he/she can not change, or even incline a little of historical course at all. For example of the American president election, even though a candidate is very democratic and takes much consideration of his/ her people, he/she will fail in the voting if most of American do not bolster him/her, or even if people know the candidate little without formalized efforts such as television propaganda, charity activity, caring for mentally- and physically- challenged individuals, and respect of various of different racial and ethnic groups, etc. Only attaining support from most people, can the great and brilliant individual display his/her ability, and as a result the history process.

While, vital and prominent individuals truly contribute a lot to the progress of history. As the matter of fact, the masses usually after the general demographic trends and can hardly get rid of the limitation of temporary phenomenon and circumstance in most of the cases, let alone have a clear consideration to challenge the current social system and change the track of historical development.
"Truth is usually seized by minority", said Plato, a Greek philosopher. Only relying upon those who have advance ideas leading groups of people, or tell their ideas to the public, can the society progress and change. Lu Xun, the first Chinese people who have the possibility to be nominated by the Nobel Prize in Literature, stands for an advanced idea of an era and lead Chinese people get rid of sleeping and blind following.

Finally, what the speaker of this statement mentioned about the emphasis on individuals during studying historical events is not true. Historian's study is completely and all round as far as possible, in order to know the truth of history.
In fact, a person's idea and value can affect the whole society via group of people, so it is to say that studying individuals who is representative and special can reflect the group activities. On the other hand, group behaviors are complicated and various, and thereby not easily to study, which might bring objective reasons and difficulties to scholars to study groups. For those matters, I bolster scholars and historians to study individuals who can represent the character of an age, rather than spend a host of money and energy to study a group of people whose behaviors are different and fickle.

To sum up, even though that when we look back of the history, what impressed us the most deeply are magnates and giants or some other special and representative people. As the matter of fact, the whole society is composed by both great individuals and general group of people, and thereby neither shouldn’t and cannot be ignored during studying social phenomenon and history causes. However, in the light of points what have been portrayed in the last analysis, such suggestion should be taken that scientists should mainly study special individuals while studying groups as supplementary.