[Snickers小组] 11月11日 Issue48

daniexiaUID: 2403405

文章被隐藏

zcsdtcUID: 2875047

Even since the Egyptians invented the art of writing, hieroglyphics, the record of history began. In so many years, historians, whose job is(are) mainly to study a certain kind of history, often place much emphasis on individuals, or the famous few when consider the contributions and influence of most significant events and trends. In my point of view, history study should not only focus on individuals, but also involve the group of people who contribute to the significant incidence.

While the famous few play an important role in the historical events, many people who do support work are forgotten. Let us take the Pyramid, one of the seven wonders in ancient world, for example. In the first place, because pyramids served as the tombs for the country's Pharaohs, thus they had some special symbolic meanings for Pharaohs, many historical studies focus on the Pharaoh and the designer of the Pyramids. While it is true that these people are representatives of the edifices and they should be studied more, we cannot ignore the hard working people at that time, who conveyed the rocks and stones and built the significant pyramids. The study about Pyramid history may also include how these builders were working, why they needed to work and so on. Thus, a more comprehensive study of the great edifice can be achieved.(我记得有关于金字塔是如何建的研究，所以这里这方面我觉得还是慎重的应用吧。)否则有冤枉历史学家的嫌疑。。。。

Another example is focused on who has more contribution to the triumph of the Second World War, Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin or someone else. Since they were leaders of their country, they had more superior power than anyone else during the world war, thus became the people that were most emphasized by historians. Is that really so? I believe not. And the reason is simple. Only these people could not bring success to the Allies, but the common citizens in their countries were the real fighters, who should be honored more. Suppose, there was no food supply in the frontier, how could the soldiers win the battle? Yes. （什么意思）In the contrary, it was because the common people who worked hard enough in the backyard manufactured a great amount of provisions, clothes and other necessities that stabilized the economy of these countries and solved the logistics issues for the battles. It is reported that quite a few Soviet's light industrial factories were once commanded to directly turn into heavy industrial ones in order to construct tanks fighting with German tanks. Since it was no easy job to do this, you can see how the working people would suffer when they were commanded to do so. Moreover, if it was not the Chinese people, who bravely bogged the Japanese troops in the China mainland, US army would not easily win the Pacific battles. In all, the triumph of the world war is due to lots of people’s hard work, not just the few presidents of the counties of the Allies.（这段主要写了普通人的贡献，但读者会思考，名人的贡献是存在的，只是没有这么突出，我觉得应该适当论述一下；主要我觉得在论述上还是没有特别深入，我读了之后没有特别大的认同。）在逻辑上需要更努力。

As a consequence for（of？） all the above examples, when considering what needs to be studied, we should also put emphasis on the ordinary people, who just accomplished their duties without any remarkable actions, whether it is Egyptian people, common citizens of the Allies or others, compared to the supreme leaders of the countries.（我认为这段放在这里不合适，根本没有提到上段二战的事情）

While a balance in the historical study should be made to focus equally（多余） on the individuals and the forgotten group of people, the fact that historical study has some limitations ought to be considered, too. In detail, the limitation is that the possibility of studying complete factors that leads to the significant events may be small. Perhaps some historical subjects has not enough evidence to support its study. For instance, though the discovery of American continent was made by Columbus as well as the crew that accompanied him, it is not possible to study whether it is the crew who first found the continent or Columbus did. Also, it does not make any sense to study in detail these crews.

As a conclusion, in most of the time, every factor should be considered, including the notable individual as well as the common people, in order to have a comprehensive view of a given incidence or a given subject in history study. However, if it is not convenient or not meaningful to study the forgotten group of people, then just take the famous few as a starting point to make some progress in historical research, before enough data can be collected.

在论述的过程中，论述不够深入，没有足够的说理，举例后的分析不够透彻。。。。大家的同病

zhangwanyingUID: 2775533

issue48 修改建议 by zhangwanying

彼年豆蔻UID: 2791778

Even since the Egyptians invented the art of writing, hieroglyphics, the record of history began. In so many years, historians, whose job is mainly to study a certain kind of history, often place much emphasis on individuals, or the famous few when consider the contributions and influence of most significant events and trends. In my point of view, history study should not only focus on individuals, but also involve the group of people who contribute to the significant incidence.

While the famous few play an important role in the historical events, many people who do （support）改为supportive work are forgotten. Let us take the Pyramid, one of the seven wonders in ancient world, for example. In the first place, because pyramids served as the tombs for the country's Pharaohs, thus they had some special symbolic meanings for Pharaohs, many historical studies focus on the Pharaoh and the designer of the Pyramids. While it is true that these people are representatives of the edifices and they should be studied more, we cannot ignore the hard working people at that time, who conveyed the rocks and stones and built the significant pyramids. The study about Pyramid history may also include how these builders were working, why they needed to work and so on. Thus, a more comprehensive study of the great edifice can be achieved.

前面可以加一个过渡句或这一段的主题句。Another example is focused on who has more contribution to the triumph of the Second World War, Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin or someone else. Since they were leaders of their country, they had more superior power than anyone else during the world war, thus became the people that （were）改为are most emphasized by historians. Is that really so?这句反问接上一句会造成歧义，让人认为意思是想表达历史学家关注点不是那个。 I believe not. And the reason is simple. Only these people could not bring success to the Allies, but the common citizens in their countries were the real fighters, who should be honored more. Suppose, there was no food supply in the frontier, how could the soldiers win the battle? （Yes.）肯定什么？ （In）改为on the contrary, it was because the common people who worked hard enough in the backyard manufactured a great amount of provisions, clothes and other necessities that stabilized the economy of these countries and solved the logistics issues for the battles. It is reported that quite a few Soviet's light industrial factories were once commanded to directly turn into heavy industrial ones in order to construct tanks fighting with German tanks. Since it was no easy job to do this, you can see how the working people would suffer when they were commanded to do so. Moreover, if it was not the Chinese people, who bravely bogged the Japanese troops in the China mainland, US army would not easily win the Pacific battles. In all, the triumph of the world war is due to lots of people’s hard work, not just the few presidents of the counties of the Allies.

As a consequence for all the above examples, when considering what needs to be studied, we should also put emphasis on the ordinary people, who just accomplished their duties without any remarkable actions, whether it is Egyptian people, common citizens of the Allies or others, compared to the supreme leaders of the countries.

While a balance in the historical study should be made to focus equally on the individuals and the forgotten groups of people, the fact that historical study has some limitations ought to be considered, too. In detail, the limitation is that the possibility of studying complete factors that leads to the significant events may be small. Perhaps some historical subject has not enough evidence to support its study. For instance, though the discovery of American continent was made by Columbus as well as the crew that accompanied him, it is not possible to study whether it is the crew who first found the continent or Columbus did. Also, it does not make any sense to study in detail these crews. 这一段的中心思想不是很明确且与有些跑题。
As a conclusion, in most （of the）删掉 time, every factor should be considered, including the notable individual as well as the common people, in order to have a comprehensive view of a given incidence or a given subject in history study. However, if it is not convenient or not meaningful to study the forgotten group of people, then just take the famous few as a starting point to make some progress in historical research, before enough data can be collected.

daniexiaUID: 2403405

想不出其他例子了，论证上有所改进，暂时先这样。

文章被隐藏