ISSUE 48 求拍

rosyljUID: 2864460

According to this statement, the speaker asserts that the major historical incidents and current hinges on groups other than individuals. I concede that the speaker’s claim might be reasonable on some cases that some revolutions were led by the masses, however, throughout the history we could find that the famous few lent some essential credence to the process of history.
Indeed, no public, there will no catalyst to propel the course of history. Any revolution requires the involvement of the public, for example, without masses the Chinese war of resistance against Japan is not possible to win and this war was born with countless nameless heroes who need to bear in mind by history. Furthermore, many marvels in history were created by masses, such as Egyptian pyramid, Chinese Great Wall. The research of history pays undue attention on the famous few especially when you open the history books, you would find that there are many biographies on celebrities and in which people always attribute the success to the famous few. I concede that such behavior can establish good model for the public and inspire us to achieve greater accomplishment, however, in the modern society, keeping an exorbitantly watchful eye on individual would beat the individualism into our head which is improper in the society that stresses on cooperation.
Nevertheless, I disagree with the speaker’s claim that history has nothing to do with the famous few, to the contrary, the famous few provide necessary impetus for the progress of history. Let’s bring our discussion here to a more present and practical context, it can be given a concrete example: in the World War 2, Roosevelt’s decision on American attending the war boosted the end of this war. Based on an assumption, what was the consequence of the war, if without this decision at that time, even though there were millions of troops of allied countries fighting? According to this example, it illustrates that one’s decision could change the process of history. Similarly, in the realm of science, Faraday’s invention of electromotor fundamentally led the human society into the electric time. Thus it can be seen individual could change the trend of history. Without the decision and creation of the famous few, how could the groups produce the marvel or revolution?
During the study of history, we conclude the research of not only the masses but also the famous few. On account of that the famous few always the crucial sign of an era in history. History is replete with ample evidence to demonstrate this point. Many notable cases in point refer to consider Lincoln the historian could see the US’s social condition as well as the significant historical events at his reigns because at that time almost every event has something to do with him; when refers to Napoleon, the historian could understands that time France even in Europe the struggle between bourgeoisie and the feudal, instead it is impossible to get these from the groups. History is constituted by some segments, and the famous stand on the point of the intersection, in result of this it is advisable to research the history from them.
From the analysis above, if comparing the human society to a ship travelling on the history current, the masses are the sailors and the famous few is the captain. They are both the necessary roles in the creation of history. As we know, without the sailors the ship cannot step forward, what’s worse, no captain the ship would have no orientation. Thus obviously the captain plays more important role that is the reason why they are engraved on our minds.

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

我说了，格式不对的，题目没贴的 字太小的不改。。。