习作-3.15 issue48求拍

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

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: 599          TIME: 01:30:00          DATE: 2010-3-15 20:52:28





Histor's way is always so intricate that it is difficult for us to search the laws behind those events covering large numbers of years, and involving a multiplicity of individuals.  When it comes to the problem who decide the trends of history, some ones hold the opinion that the few elite played the main roles all the time, while others insist on a view that, on the contrary, it is groups of average men and women that determined our past records. After carefully analysing the historical information on my hand, I find that mor reasons lending support to the latter one are available. Even so ,however, I can't agree with the speaker't another claim that the study of history pay too much  attention to some individuals.





The more importance of groups of average persons in deciding the history is illustrated by following reasons. The first, since the material well-being and spitrtual wealth were both produced by thousands of individuals whose names we never known, they in in fact defined a society howe  prosperous it was and how fast it developed. Any horoes and hoeroins or other famous people are never separated from the conditons provided by untold average people. Further more, they were just based on and took adavantage of these conditions. For example, almost all of us believe that Newton is one of the greates sicentists, but did he alone make the excellent achivements? Of course no! Just as he sayed himself: I just stand on the shoulder of giants. So ,obviously, any progress in physics is made by numerous researchers. For the same reason, as a hole, our society are pushed by incaculable single persons.  The second, any leaders in the hisory succeeded only by getting the support of civilian population. Chairman Mao in china, viewed as a unprecedented hero who founded the new government, greatly influenced the history of China by catering to the need and willing of thousands of poor people, whereas Hitler, who was the main criminal in the Second World War,  lost his life and dream for his violation to humankind. So, we can get conclusion that, not the few famous, but countless common ones factly controlled the hitory even themselves didn't realize it .





Howevr, has the study of history overly emphasised the famous individualsl? As I see, there no exist such evidence to justify this point. In practice, more attention payed on some individuals help us learn history.  One reason is that we can more easily master the feature of one period of time or an event in history, for the horoes and horeins or leaders of in history often typically represent that era or those people.  For instance, we well learn chinese history of any dynasty by study a few important emperors with their significant nwe policy. After all, by this way, the history bcame convenient to remember. Another reason why we should accentuate the individuals is that individual offer concrete models for us to study.  Specifically, positive models help us erect sublime values, while negetive ones helps us prevent same mistakes. On ther contrary, if we pay closly attention to the unkown individuals in history, we  are likely to lost ouselves in massive information.





To sum up, in conscience, all of us average persons  as a hole is the strong force in  determining the history rather than a few famous. This point encourages us to take a positve attitude to the society since the future is in our hand. And every one make a difference. At the smae time, learning history is inevitably connected with the few persons we easy momorise. In fact, this learning way does not conflict with the point that groups of unknown people make the history, for the few famous are virtually representatives of those average persons.

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

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: 599          TIME: 01:30:00          DATE: 2010-3-15 20:52:28





Histor's way is always so intricate that it is difficult for us to search the laws behind those events covering large numbers of years, and involving a multiplicity of individuals.  When it comes to the problem who decide the trends of history, some ones hold the opinion that the few elite played the main roles all the time, while others insist on a view that, on the contrary, it is groups of average men and women that determined our past records. After carefully analysing the historical information on my hand, I find that mor reasons lending support to the latter one are available. Even so ,however, I can't agree with the speaker't another claim that the study of history pay too much  attention to some individuals.
(This beginning seems verbose!!! I'd better dierctly express my stance of this issue in the start and imply my plot of this response)
The modified one:
Whether it is the few famous people or unknown groups of people that shape our history is always a controvirsial issue between historians. While some well known persons have significant impact on the trend of history,  actions of  groups of people are the decisive force in forming our past records. However, placing more emphasis on individuals when studying history is inevitable and beneficial.


The more importance of groups of average persons in deciding the history is illustrated by following reasons. The first, since the material well-being and spitrtual wealth were both produced by thousands of individuals whose names we never known, they in fact defined a society how  prosperous it was and how fast it developed. Any horoes and hoeroins or other famous people are never separated from the conditons provided by untold average people. Further more, they were just based on and took adavantage of these conditions. For example, almost all of us believe that Newton is one of the greates sicentists, but did he alone make the excellent achivements? Of course no! Just as he sayed himself: I just stand on the shoulder of giants. So ,obviously, any progress in physics is made by numerous researchers. For the same reason, as a hole, our society are pushed by incaculable single persons.  The second, any leaders in the hisory succeeded only by getting the support of civilian population. Chairman Mao in china, viewed as a unprecedented hero who founded the new government, greatly influenced the history of China by catering to the need and willing of thousands of poor people, whereas Hitler, who was the main criminal in the Second World War,  lost his life and dream for his violation to humankind. So, we can get conclusion that, not the few famous, but countless common ones factly controlled the hitory even themselves didn't realize it .





Howevr, has the study of history overly emphasised the famous individualsl? As I see, there no exist such evidence to justify this point. In practice, more attention payed on some individuals help us learn history.  One reason is that we can more easily master the feature of one period of time or an event in history, for the horoes and horeins or leaders of in history often typically represent that era or those people.  For instance, we well learn chinese history of any dynasty by study a few important emperors with their significant nwe policy. After all, by this way, the history bcame convenient to remember. Another reason why we should accentuate the individuals is that individual offer concrete models for us to study.  Specifically, positive models help us erect sublime values, while negetive ones helps us prevent same mistakes. On ther contrary, if we pay closly attention to the unkown individuals in history, we  are likely to lost ouselves in massive information.





To sum up, in conscience, all of us average persons  as a hole is the strong force in  determining the history rather than a few famous. This point encourages us to take a positve attitude to the society since the future is in our hand. And every one make a difference. At the smae time, learning history is inevitably connected with the few persons we easy momorise. In fact, this learning way does not conflict with the point that groups of unknown people make the history, for the few famous are virtually representatives of those average persons.