issue48 again:历史上精英与大众的关系

QQsugarUID: 136441

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 asserts that the importance of the elite has long been overrated in history research and overshadowed the more significant role of mass people who actually propelled the progress of history. As for me, I strongly agree with the assertion, however, I still see some justifications for the historians’ work to investigate more on the outstanding few than on the common mass.

      Theoretically, to get a full appreciation of a historical era, historians should emphasize their research on reappearing the attitude and behavior of all social groups, rather than on the elite class only, for the simple reason that it is these majority of people who constitute the body of a society and eventually propel the social development in history. The sum of power and wisdom accumulated by the mass is undoubtedly infinite, capable of sustaining a regime or overthrowing it exhaustively. No leader is powerful enough to be independent on the mass people’s proponent. No scientist is gifted enough to discard all the  intellectual inspirations he receives from the mass people in his lifetime. What’s more, historians could hardly grasp an accurate and reliable picture of what a specific society was like without collecting sufficient information about the well-being of the mass in that time. As we all know, what characterizes a specific period of time, and embodies the advantages or weakness of the society is not the status of its happy few, whose ideas may be superior to the whole era, but the thought and ideas of its people. In a word, the mass have indeed play a significant role in historical development worth further studying.

     However, as a matter of fact, there are so many impediments lying there to hamper the history study from sufficient coverage of the nonelite. One of the most conspicuous difficulties, as historians now face, is lack of first-hand evidence in that few of these majority recorded their thoughts or had them chronicled by contemporaries just as those elite and illuminate few did. Therefore, there are very few, if any, reliable resources from which historians could turn to and directly deduce the social status, the spiritual outlooks, the economic incomes, and etc. Moreover, as an individual, the historian itself is also easily attracted by the famous few rather than the common majority. Hence, even when he encounters with some historical recording of great events, he is so often inclined to focus on the contributions of the illuminate few without being bothered to untangle the underlying function and attitude of mass people.

Last but not least, it should be reminded that historians would always have justifications for this pursuit of elite-centered study. For one thing, though the sum of the elite is far less than the total number of mass in any particular time, the individual influence and meaning of the elite few to the whole society are far significant to any signal common individuality. The representative examples of Napoleon and Hitler are apt illustrations to this point. Whether benefit or detriment they brought to the world, they would both be remembered by the offspring for their overwhelmingly influence to their contemporaries and far-reaching meaning to the future groups. For another, few as they are, the inspiration and courage we could get from the illuminated few are infinite. Washington, for instance, set a perfect model for the precious character of integrity. Lincoln, especially in the period of national war, showed great courage and persistence which would encourage the future leaders to face with adversities and difficulties.

To sum up, under no circumstance should history study overlooks the significance of the mass. However, both the external difficulty and the inherent requirement of human being which calls for the inspiration from the illuminated few constitute justifications for the elite-focused history study.

feier521UID: 109747

QQ 糖，你的句式太棒了！强调，让步，否定倒装...偶太佩服了。
但是，不太注意单复数形式如：emphasize their research（es） on reappearing the attitude and behavior of all social groups ；thought（s） and ideas of its people；the offspring（s） for their overwhelmingly influence。
还有时态：the mass have indeed play
还有illuminate 用错了；national war——》civil war； signal－－》single

第3段，说道historian的时候，Moreover, as an individual, the historian itself is also easily attracted by the famous few rather than the common majority. 感觉你的这个观点和第4段有点重复。
为什么不重视大众呢？1 留下的record少2 那么多的人怎么可能有少数历史学家研究完 3 没有代表性，每个人的力量、贡献相对较小

呵呵，水平太差，希望没有糟蹋你的好文章。向你学习中...

screwUID: 135321

QQ糖，我找不到下笔之处改啊…
你实在写得太好了，语言思想都很流畅，呵呵…我好象看了一篇范文一样，佩服 :D

QQsugarUID: 136441

feier, screw, 你们都太给我面子了，其实我自己最近状态挺不好的，老是觉得才思枯竭，不知如何下笔了。
anyway, thank you so much for your praise. I am really encouraged!

QQsugarUID: 136441

To feier:
    其实我当时写这篇文章的时候思路是这样的，历史学家为什么总是聚焦于少数伟人身上呢，原因主要是： 客观方面：缺少可靠的关于大众的资料；主观方面：历史学家本人也容易忽视这些大众的作用，很少去挖掘历史资料背后大众的意义。 同时这么做，也有它合理的一面，因为伟人的影响，不仅对当时的人，即使是今天也同样有很大的意义。

paisleyUID: 64183

啊，真的是写的很好，观点也非常独到！

呵呵，除了给你标记精华以外，好象做不了什么事情了:D

ken0405UID: 124994

我觉得个人主义很好写。每个社会都需要hero的，来起到example的作用，表现社会文化。
很多trends都是由个人发起的。
很多achievements都是个人取得的。
再有，大众的资料不全，不可能引起历史学家的注意。

QQsugarUID: 136441

谢谢Paisley JJ
ken, 你的观点我完全接受。。

happyman2000UID: 136936

the importance of the elite ,elite用得不大合适，希特勒肯定称不上精英，但照样是历史学家关注的焦点。还有洪秀全什么之类的草莽英雄，也不大合适叫做社会精英。
第一句，The speaker asserts that the importance of the elite has long been overrated in history research and overshadowed the more significant role of mass people who actually propelled the progress of history。 后面的overshadowed的主语是什么？不可能是the importance of the elite 吧！搭配有问题！
第三段谈impediments. 我觉得impediment主要是指外部的困难或阻力。你的第二个impediment 是Moreover, as an individual, the historian itself is also easily attracted by the famous few rather than the common majority. 你想想，这也能叫做impediment?
我也写过这篇，观点和你基本上是一样的。不过，我还是觉得你的第二段没必要。在开头提一下就可以了，它不是你要论述的主要内容。强加上第二段的后果是第三特别是第四段没有充分展开，总觉得是观点堆观点。
意见可能比较偏颇，请谅解！

happyman2000UID: 136936

qq糖怎么不反馈一下对我的意见的意见！

QQsugarUID: 136441

happyman, 谢谢你的意见哦。 你说的很对了，我也想过其实历史上有名的人并不一定都是elite, 但是可以说历史研究的一个很大的侧重点就是elite啊。象洪秀全这种，有历史学家会去谈到他，但是应该没有人去花那么多的精力去探讨这个人物背后的价值啊。站主体的归根结底还是elite
哦，还有第一句话，的确有点不地道，这也是我写作是经常出的一个问题，谢谢你帮我指出来哦。