Issue48 [Sining sep] 高频, 欢迎拍！

veinardUID: 2195006

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: 516       DATE: 2006-8-21

Should the study of history places more emphasis on groups of people rather than famous individuals? The speaker claims so, for the most significant events and trends in history were created by the mass. As far as I am concerned, whether the history study should pay more attention to the elites or not is a case-to-case issue.

Admittedly, the progress of history depends much on the united efforts and strength of the multitude. Only with the assistance and support of the public, the elite few could achieve their goals—to generate significant reformations and improvements. Especially for some far-reaching revolutions, the effect of the mess was more indispensable. Consider the February Revolution--the crucial revolution of France, if not organized by large population of Paris spontaneously, then the tyranny of feudal domination would never be toppled over by the only a few neonatal bourgeoisie who had little courage and power in that ear. Thanks to the public, whose great effort paved the way to the development of Capitalism, France could ultimately advance to the new and vigorous society. It may be impossible that the historians who only focus their sight on the minority of the bourgeoisie, but neglect the spacious participants, can gain a valuable outcome of the February Revolution study.

It is true that groups of people who play the major part in the river of history, but it does not mean that we can put the study of them superior to that of the famous individuals. No one can deny the famous people's significant functions and impacts to the development of human. When it comes to the realms of arts and science, the elite's contributions particularly spur the whole improvement in the areas. It is hard to imagine that historians can attain any significant achievement without studying the giants, such as Dante, Vince, Shakespeare and so on when they research the special attribution and historic influences of Renaissance. Likewise, when researching the impetus of the two Industrial Revolutions, no a sensible historian would emphasize more attention on the multitude than the preeminent individuals--depended on whose innovation and insight, the epochal  events could take place.

From the discussed above, we should realize that neither paying extreme attention to the mass people nor just focus on the achievements and influence of the famous individuals can bring some significant fruits to the study of history. In the other word, it is the various characters and situations of historic events determine the degree to which historians should emphasize on the minority individuals. In most circumstances, the study of history calls for no only the information of the groups of people, but also the specific situation of the famous individuals.

Without studying the actions of the multitude, the history would lose its objectivity and fairness for that the famous individuals cannot fully represent the overall humanity; without exploring the greatness or mistakes of the elites, history would be deprived of the function of offering descendants wisdom as well as lessons. Therefore, balancing the two important aspects of history study, in my view, is the optimized way for historians.

MagicGlaiveUID: 2112081

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: 516       DATE: 2006-8-21

Should the study of history places more emphasis on groups of people rather than famous individuals? The speaker claims so, for the most significant events and trends in history were created by the mass. As far as I am concerned, whether the history study should pay more attention to the elites or not is a case-to-case issue.

Admittedly, the progress of history depends much on the united efforts and strength of the multitude. Only with the assistance and support of the public, the elite few could achieve their goals—to generate significant reformations and improvements. Especially for some far-reaching revolutions, the effect of the mess was more indispensable这个切入点很好！. Consider the February Revolution--the crucial revolution of France, if not organized by large population of Paris spontaneously, then the tyranny of feudal domination would never be toppled over by the only a few neonatal bourgeoisie who had little courage and power in that ear很好的例子！而且这个例子中恰恰没有什么伟大的任务，比较贴切. Thanks to the public, whose great effort paved the way to the development of Capitalism, France could ultimately advance to the new and vigorous society. It may be impossible that the historians who only focus their sight on the minority of the bourgeoisie, but neglect the spacious participants, can gain a valuable outcome of the February Revolution study.

It is true that groups of people who play the major part in the river of history, but it does not mean that we can put the study of them superior to that of the famous individuals. No one can deny the famous people's significant functions and impacts to the development of human. When it comes to the realms of arts and science, the elite's contributions particularly spur好词！ the whole improvement in the areas. It is hard to imagine that historians can attain any significant achievement without studying the giants, such as Dante, Vince, Shakespeare and so on when they research the special attribution and historic influences of Renaissance. Likewise, when researching the impetus of the two Industrial Revolutions, no a sensible historian would emphasize more attention on the multitude than the preeminent individuals--depended on whose innovation and insight, the epochal  events could take place.

From the discussion above, we should realize that neither paying extreme attention to the mass people nor just focus on the achievements and influence of the famous individuals can bring some significant fruits to the study of history. In the other word, it is the various characters and situations of historic events determine the degree to which historians should emphasize on the minority individuals. In most circumstances, the study of history calls for not only the information of the groups of people, but also the specific situation of the famous individuals.

Without studying the actions of the multitude, the history would lose its objectivity and fairness for that the famous individuals cannot fully represent the overall humanity; without exploring the greatness or mistakes of the elites, history would be deprived of the function of offering descendants wisdom as well as lessons. Therefore, balancing the two important aspects of history study, in my view, is the optimized way for historians

没什么说得了，6分范文就在我们身边

[ 本帖最后由 MagicGlaive 于 2006-8-21 20:17 编辑 ]