【Hawk组】7.12任务

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

comment 贴：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1120808-1-1.html

[每日一题][ISSUE48][词句积累&讨论][20100711]：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1121509-1-1.html
[每日一题][ISSUE48][例子积累&讨论][20100711]：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1121510-1-1.html
[每日一题][ISSUE48][思路积累&讨论][20100711]：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1121507-1-1.html
[每日一题][ISSUE48][提纲互改][20100711]：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1121506-1-1.html

晓航-谦行-AGENS-ROSE【后改前】

谦行天下UID: 2797557

When it comes to the issue of the study of history, some people think it places too much attention on individuals, considering the prevalence of the Great man theory which explains history by great men. However, accumulating evidences suggest that the study of history concerns about economy, cultures, politics and laws in general, but not overemphasis individuals. If historians emphasis some individuals that because they deserve to be emphasized. In my point of view, both the famous few and groups of people have been reasonably emphasized.


First of all, the study of history does not put too much emphasis on individuals. To make this clear, an analysis of the study of history is necessary. History is the study of human past, which narrates the events happening in the past and analyzes the causes and effects. History studies the culture, science, people, economy and policies in the past. Individuals are involved in the events and each individual do something that makes history move steps. Therefore, the study of history concerns all the events in the past not only some individuals.

However, there exist some individuals to whom historians need pay attention. For one thing, great celebrities, who emerge as the times required, have great impacts on society. We can still motivated by their great spirits yesterday. More than one hundred years past, we are still deeply touched by Martin Luther King’s single-minded devotion to emancipate the blacks. We cannot tell how much that great statesman Mahatma Gandhi has done for his country during the Indian Independence Movement. For another thing, we could always learn something from historic individuals as history tends to repeat. We could learn from success and therefore avoiding failure. We could learn how Edison and Newton became great scientists and the mistakes made by Hitler and Saddam Hussein. The wheel of history can never be turned back, but we can study from history for today’s use. Hence, some historic individuals deserve to study, which means these individuals are not overemphasized.


Moreover, people who make great contributions to society are memorized as a group. Whether they are common or do not have great leaders to be remembered, the study of history does include their contributions. For example, we do not know the names of the people who built the Great Wall in China, but we do know there was a group of workers who completed a gorgeous project and helped Chinese people defense invaders. Many art works left without the name of the makers, but we do memorize the ones who have such deft hands. Besides, it is insignificant to memorize every individual of the group and because of the limitation of recording tools, the huge quantity of the group, it is hard to memory everyone.

In conclusion, individuals who are just one part of history do not be overemphasized. Although history studies some individuals who have great impacts for they deserve to be pay attention to, we do not ignore other parts in the history. We learn from those groups of people who also left great impacts but no names as well.

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

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: 533          TIME: 01:43:12          DATE: 2010/7/13 14:53:50

"History is written by those that hanged heroes.” said by Robert the Bruce. The famous few and the groups of people both have their own contributions to the history. We should not ignore any one of them. But the famous few play such a greater role in the history that they deserve to be remembered and respected.
In the past, the identities of the groups of people who get a small amount of attention are not be recorded by historians, which had referred by many contemporary history books. The statement that archives about the masses are limited in the past history shows the neglect of the masses exists. After the Industrial Revolution, however, parts of historians began to study the masses’ identities and their ideas by the only documents the records of legal courts. Nevertheless, the attentions to the masses seem little. On the whole, begin is better than none.
Granted that our study take too much emphasis on the individuals, the heroes deserve to be remembered for their contributions. In any part of history, the heroes are always the necessary ones who initiated sequence of events to change the direction of history. Heroes like the captain at the helm in history fleets and the masses are mariners. Captain and mariners are both indispensable but every decision are determined by captain.
Take the example of Chairman Mao the leader of Communists, he chooses the right method to resist the invasion from Japan, Guerrilla warfare. In the Second World War his right decision and appropriate method held the main army of Japan and take a lot of time for the Allied in the Pacific Battlefield. If without Chairman Mao and President Jiang, China will be occupied by Japan in a short time then Allied victory can not be identified. So the masses have its own effects, but heroes have more decisive effects to the history. The heroes have the right to be respected!
The heroes deserve to be respected, but whether it is right to attribute those historians not to study the masses’ identities to historians themselves. Even if the historians in the past purposed to study the groups of people’s identities, there had no instrument but only pans to record these archives. Thence it is difficult even impossible to record the masses’ identities and study them. As the saying goes, can not make bricks without straw. In the late 20th century, it takes a team years of time to make a Corpus of hundreds of thousand words. Now, one worker spend about hours can make a Corpus of millions words. Therefore it is the important to have strong instruments and to break the constraints of objective factors. And it is unfair for the historians to due the neglect of the masses to them.
To sum up, the statement that historians neglect the groups of people's identities has its objective reasons. Besides, without any of these heroes who lead people to change the history it is needless to say our history will be changed to more possible a worse one. The heroes are eligible for the respect and attentions. So we should to keep emphasizing on individuals, but when necessary on groups of people.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

48"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."

The speaker claims that the most significant historical events and trends were made possible by groups of people instead of the famous few, and that the study of history emphasize too much on the latter. Yet, I tend to disagree with the dual claim as in spite of the fact that group efforts should be emphasized, the importance of the famous few is still second to none.

First of all, compared with common people, the famous few deserve far more research value. Historians always trace the clue of the history by studying a few people who were well-known during that period, with less concern about the study of the common people. From my perspective, they do so for the sake of efficiency and quality of historical research. The famous few always take part in the event more initiatively and experience the history more vividly, thus providing the possibility of reflecting the country’s condition and the people’s livelihood. When studying a blank history, historians need to search for an entrance into it, which finally falls on the famous few. By following up their life, historians will quickly get far more branch knowledge than by tracing the life of those common people who can hardly provide myriad materials. Therefore, it is not a prejudice but a necessity for historians to lay more attention on the study of the famous few.

In addition, besides that the typical figures of those famous few benefit the study of history, their achievements are incomparable with those of others. when it comes to the most significant events or trends, what we recall mostly are the decision-makers in the events. For instance, assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. His major decision-New Deal Program brought hope to the whole depressed nation, thus crowning him one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States. Though the powerful efforts made by his citizens can not be overlooked, their role as executants can not equal that of Roosevelt. Without the brilliant and decisive decision made by Roosevelt, the American citizens may undergo the depression for a long time regardless of their together efforts.

However, just because the famous few are more likely to receive attention from historians, it does not mean the power of the entire group working behind the stage is not recognized. Since it is difficult to conclude all their performance and what they do are nearly all the same, researches always use a conception of “group efforts” to cover what they contribute to the events without naming them one after another. Instead of being forgotten, their contribution will still be kept in people’s mind. When reminded of the construction of the Great Wall, we will highly appreciate and admire the fruit of the workers’ hardworking rather than thinking of the decision made by Qin Shi Huang as the workers devoted too much for the construction and their contribution can not be weighed.

In sum, history is shaped by both key individuals and those nameless groups. It is the famous few that provide visions of the future and made the major decisions. Their efforts are the highlight of the history, which can be replaced by none. However, the faceless groups are also a part of history, whose contribution, though with no wonder, is still born in mind by people nowadays.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

再占

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改晓航
wrong
my comment
my suggestion & question
Good to learn


"History is written by those that hanged heroes.” said by Robert the? Bruce. The famous few and the groups of people both have their own contributions to the history. We should not ignore any one of them.[If we put in this "Neither of them should be ignored. ", it would be more fluent] But the famous few play such a greater role in the history that they deserve to be remembered and respected.

In the past, the identities of the groups of people who get a small amount of attention are[were] not be recorded by historians, which had referred by many contemporary history books. The statement that archives about the masses are limited in the past history shows the neglect of the masses exists.[It is a good sentence with advanced vocabulary and stucture] After the Industrial Revolution,[Not until the Industrial Revolution happend,用倒装强调是不是效果更好一点] however, parts of historians began to study the masses’ identities and their ideas by the only documents the records of legal courts. Nevertheless, the attentions to the masses seem little. On the whole, begin is better than none.

You use persuasive evidence to support your point, "the attention to masses is little." Just revise you sentences to make your paragraph more fluent. Good job!

Granted that our study take too much emphasis on the individuals, the heroes deserve to be remembered for their contributions.[晓航你的逻辑总有点让人混乱，这句翻译一下你看对不对：即使我们的研究过度地重视了个人，但是个人被记住是应该的。有点让我抓狂，你是如何转折的？我想，正因为个人被记住是deserve的，我们研究重视才不过分呀！] In any part of history, the heroes are always the necessary ones who initiated sequence of events to change the direction of history. Heroes like the captain at the helm in history fleets and the masses are mariners. Captain and mariners are both indispensable but every decision are determined by captain.

Take the example of Chairman Mao the leader of Communists, he chooses[chose] the right method to resist the invasion from Japan, Guerrilla warfare. In the Second World War his right decision and appropriate method held the main army of Japan and take a lot of time? for the Allied in the Pacific Battlefield. If without Chairman Mao and President Jiang, China will be occupied by Japan in a short time then Allied victory can not be identified. So the masses have its own effects, but heroes have more decisive effects to the history. The heroes have the right to be respected!

The heroes deserve to be respected, but whether it is right to attribute those historians not to study the masses’ identities to historians themselves?像是一个疑问句，没太明白你是想用疑问句么. Even if the historians in the past purposed to study the groups of people’s identities, there had no instrument but only pans to record these archives. Thence it is difficult even impossible to record the masses’ identities and study them. As the saying goes,这句话缺一个主语 can not make bricks without straw. In the late 20th century, it takes a team years of time to make a Corpus of hundreds of thousand words. However, Now, one worker spend only about hours can make a Corpus of millions words.[Good point] Therefore it is the[delete] important to have strong instruments and to break the constraints of objective factors. And it is unfair for the historians to due the neglect of the masses to them.

To sum up, the statement that historians neglect the groups of people's identities has its objective reasons. Besides, without any of these heroes who lead people to change the history it is needless to say our history will be changed to more possible a worse one. The heroes are eligible for the respect and attentions. So we should to keep emphasizing on individuals, but when necessary on groups of people.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

outline:
开头
①历史之所以会过分的强调少数历史人物的作用是有原因的。客观和主观的原因
②历史是由人民创造的，原因是
③少数历史人物和人民大众对历史的影响，历史人物对历史事件和其发展起到了推动作用
结尾

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: 220
TIME: 00:47:39
DATE: 2010/7/14 1:01:13

When historians have researches on the past, they always started with the individuals, who are remaining in the limelight from then on. Actually, it is the history itself that made the famous few worth concerned. History is a mirror used to represent a study of the past, which is composed of every individual, and the few elite have been putting a great impact on the significant events and trends.

Admittedly, those who had decisive power in the historical events and tendency usually catched people's eye. Eager to know the reasons why the French Revolution exploded, the researchers will definitely get started from the policy on regime or economy made by Louis XVI. The eminent people always become the focus in history because not only there are plenty of clues that suggested the tendency of history, but they were mostly recorded in the long course of history as well. The identities of the nonelite have long been forgotten because of some historic unavoidable reasons, such as the lagging scientific technology of recording. Moreover, there is always being the unnessity of their being recording since one person is too trivial just like one tiny drop of water in the considerable ocean. As a result of that, the study of history, more often than not, places lots of emphasis on renowned few persons.

Nowadays, when people find the noted were always in the limelight in the historic learning, they come back to the original point, feeling having lost something. History is an unceasingly river which consists of every little drop of water---every single person in society. Despite the insignificance, the power of thousands of hundreds of the trivial individuals can't be estimated. How many great victories could the leaders attain without their marvelous army? Any battle or giant achievement that made by the exemplary people was realized at the cost of the masses' effort---The Great Wall( conducted by Qin Shi Huang, a harsh and effective emperor in Qin Dynasty ancient China), World War II and so forth. It is the group of people that created the history; they acted as the leading characters in the drift and trend. Nevertheless, their personal identities have long been forgotten because there were too many nameless heroes, which have become a miniature in the depth of people's gratitude toward them.

The interaction between the elite and nonelite promote the development of history. When we are judging the historical figures, we cannot excessively emphasize their decisive function in the events and trends because they played the "catalyst" role and speed up history's paces. If Mahatma Gandhi didn't show up, India would slow down the speed of turnaround and wait for a competent savior and being given the independence. Both the few individuals and the other people are indispensible in the study of history.

History immortalizes the memories of some celebrated people, since they had made immense contributions to changing the history. Moreover, how to make the biggest effect on the research in the multitude and let the relationship between these two groups clear worth probing and studying.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

改Agens
good words and expression
sentances helping the structure
questions and comments

48"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."

The speaker claims that the most significant historical events and trends were made possible by groups of people instead of the famous few, and that the study of history emphasize too much on the latter. Yet, I tend to disagree with the dual claim as in spite of the fact that group efforts should be emphasized, the importance of the famous few is still second to none.

First of all, compared with common people, the famous few deserve far more research value.【本段中心句】 Historians always trace the clue of the history by studying a few people who were well-known during that period, with less concern about the study of the common people. From my perspective, they do so for the sake of efficiency and quality of historical research. The famous few always take part in the event more initiatively and experience the history more vividly, thus providing the possibility of reflecting the country’s condition and the people’s livelihood. When studying a blank history, historians need to search for an entrance into it, which finally falls on the famous few. By following up their life, historians will quickly get far more branch knowledge than by tracing the life of those common people who can hardly provide myriad materials. Therefore, it is not a prejudice but a necessity for historians to lay more attention on the study of the famous few.

In addition, besides that the typical figures of those famous few benefit the study of history, their achievements are incomparable with those of others. When it comes to the most significant events or trends, what we recall mostly 改成first，或者initially 比较好 are the decision-makers in the events. For instance, assuming不是很明白要表达什么意思 the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. His major decision-New Deal Program brought hope to the whole depressed nation, thus crowning him one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States. Though the powerful efforts made by his citizens can not be overlooked, their role as executants can not equal that of Roosevelt. Without the brilliant and decisive decision made by Roosevelt, the American citizens may undergo the depression for a long time regardless of their together efforts.这句话意思和上面那句有点重复，这段是要说明领导者的重要性嘛，这样的例子都可以在一句话里面写完，因为罗斯福毕竟是大家都耳熟能详的例子，现在你大半段都用这个例子，感觉有点单薄

However, just because可删除 although the famous few are more likely to receive attention from historians，it does not mean the power of the entire group working behind the stage is not recognized. Since it is difficult to conclude all their performance and what they do are nearly all the same两个动词，病句了, researches always use a conception of “group efforts” to cover表达好 what they contribute to the events without naming them one after another. Instead of being forgotten, their contribution will still be kept in people’s mind. When reminded of the construction of the Great Wall, we will highly appreciate and admire the fruit of the workers’ hardworking rather than thinking of the decision made by Qin Shi Huang as the workers devoted too much for the construction and their contribution can not be weighed. 可以改成，the workers had devoted too much for the construction, which couldn't be estimated.

In sum, history is shaped by both key individuals and those nameless groups. It is the famous few that provide visions of the future and made the major decisions. Their efforts are the highlight of the history, which can be replaced by none. However, the faceless groups are also a part of history, whose contribution, though with no wonder, is still born in mind by people nowadays.
脉络很清晰，例子有点少，而且都是比较普遍的那种（长城的例子我也用了哈哈~ = = ）。表达很流畅，读起来很顺，但是词汇和句式有些单一，我发现你短句比较多~呵呵~改的不好~~有什么问题再告诉我~~加油！！

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

改晚了。。。SORRY啊。。。给忘了。。。