Issue 48 历史是不是过分强调个人

dvdwormUID: 168213

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."

Dose the study of history place too much emphasis on individuals and the most significant events and trends in history were made by groups of people rather than the famous few, as the speaker claims? As far as I am concerned, I disagree with this assertion. In the following discussion I would like to present evidence to support my standpoint.

Admittedly, as an old Chinese adage says “the power of the mass is infinite.” we must confess common people played an important role in the most significant historic events and trends. The individual’s ability is finite, without the participation of common people in the historic events and trends, these events and trends would possibly not happened in most cases no matter how strong the elite’s will was and how hard he tried. Could George Washington erect the U.S.A by himself? Could Abraham Lincoln save the Union from disintegration and eliminate slavery in America by himself? Or could Dengxiaoping prosper the Chinese economy by himself? The answer is definitely not. These elites erected grave targets and set down the proper policies for accomplishing them, but it is the mass to carry our those policies and to achievement those targets.

However, confessing the important role the mass played in historic events and trends does not imply that we should gainsay the status of the elites in these events and trends. In fact, they played the core role in them. Without the elites’ lead the mass would not know what their abilities should be contributed to. Before Deng shifted China from planned economy to market economy, although the Chinese had devoted their time and energy in economy construction, the economy of China still dropped behind the world. It did not begin booming until Deng introduced market economy into China and put forward a series of economic policies. Because Deng’s contribution in Chinese economy, he is cherished by his people. If a historian wants to record the huge change in Chinese economy from 1980s to now, he will surely play more emphasis on Deng than the ordinary Chinese. If we could understand this historian’s choice, we will have no difficult to understand why historians had played so much emphasis on individuals when they recorded the most significant events and trends in history.

Furthermore, sometimes the objective conditions compel historians to play more emphasis on elites than ordinary people. For example, lacking sufficient materials force historians to do so especially when they record old events and trends. When a significant event or trend happened, there must be many people participated in it. For objective reasons the historian in that period could only chose the most important individuals in that event or trend to record. Even if the posterior historians want to owe that event to other people they are unable to do so because the prior historians did not provide enough materials for them.

In conclusion, for the leading role the individuals played in the most significant events in history and for other objective reasons, it is reasonable for the historians to play much emphasis on individuals. But at the same time we should not ignore the power of the mass, without their help the elites could not accomplish those significant events by themselves.

山坡羊UID: 169978

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."

Dose［ｄｏｅｓ］ the study of history place too much emphasis on individuals and the most significant events and trends in history were made by groups of people rather than the famous few, as the speaker claims? As far as I am concerned, I disagree with this assertion. In the following discussion I would like to present evidence to support my standpoint.［挺简练的］

Admittedly, as an old Chinese adage says “the power of the mass is infinite.” we must confess common people played an important role in the most significant historic events and trends. The individual’s ability is finite, without the participation of common people in the historic events and trends, these events and trends would possibly not happened in most cases no matter how strong the elite’s [还是不太同意这词，因为希特勒等不算elites,但用什么呢？”the famous few”?]will was and how hard he tried. Could George Washington erect the U.S.A by himself? Could Abraham Lincoln save the Union from disintegration and eliminate slavery in America by himself?[with his own ability,换一个好吧] Or could Dengxiaoping [Den Xiaoping]prosper the Chinese economy by himself?[同上，using his own hard working] The answer is definitely not. These elites erected grave [grave 不明白]targets and set down the proper policies for accomplishing them, but it is the mass to carry our those policies and to achievement those targets.[很清晰]

However, confessing the important role the mass played in historic events and trends does not imply that we should gainsay the status of the elites in these events and trends. In fact, they played the core role in them. Without the elites’ lead the mass would not know what their abilities should be contributed to[好]. Before Deng shifted China from planned economy to market economy, although the Chinese had devoted their time and energy in economy construction, the economy of China still dropped behind the world. It did not begin booming until Deng introduced market economy into China and put forward a series of economic policies. Because Deng’s contribution in Chinese economy, he is cherished by his people.[这句话有点多余] If a historian wants to record the huge change in Chinese economy from 1980s to now, he will surely play more emphasis on Deng than the ordinary Chinese. If we could understand this historian’s choice, we will have no difficult to understand why historians had played so much emphasis on individuals when they recorded the most significant events and trends in history.[流畅，很好的例子]

Furthermore, sometimes the objective conditions compel historians to play more emphasis on elites than ordinary people. For example, lacking sufficient materials force historians to do so especially when they record old events and trends. When a significant event or trend happened, there must be many people participated in it. For objective reasons the historian in that period could only chose the most important individuals in that event or trend to record. Even if the posterior historians want to owe that event to other people they are unable to do so because the prior historians did not provide enough materials for them.

In conclusion, for the leading role the individuals played in the most significant events in history and for other objective reasons, it is reasonable for the historians to play much emphasis on individuals. But at the same time we should not ignore the power of the mass, without their help the elites could not accomplish those significant events by themselves.

[小结：
觉得你写得真好，我很难挑出毛病。思路清晰流畅，逻辑严密，语言也很好。
关于思路，我的和你的差不多，只是最后我再说了一下历史学也不要忽视大众，因为资料虽少作为一个全体还是多的，有各方面的价值的，不知你觉得如何。
加油！好运！]

龙非UID: 193190

语言方面挺好的，除了那个elite实在碍眼 :D
结构、逻辑也比较合理。

提点个人觉得可以改进的地方。
1）第一段简单地重述了题目，并提出自己的意见（disagree），但是并不够明确，不同意题目的什么地方了，全部不同意？显然不是。不同意，那么你觉得应该如何呢？不清楚，要依赖下面的论述才知道你的主张。个人觉得有必要在第一段将自己的观点清楚地表达出来，起到一个提纲挈领的作用，并在结论段作个回应这样子整篇文章就更加严谨了
2）第二段让步的篇幅有点长，而且个人觉得一开始让步会减弱自己的说服力，最好是最后再让步来体现思维的严谨。

呼呼，挑不出毛病了

一家之言，欢迎指正，共勉之

lavenderjyUID: 193211

偶是菜鸟哦，拜读师兄的帖子，啊，好哦，
只是在结构安排上，开头的反例气势太强了，似乎削弱了后面论证的力度，

菜鸟意见，仅供参考~~~~！！