Issue48 出来盼被揍揍 恭迎贵府砖头～×^^×

sylvie0211UID: 2296270

多谢批改咯～～～～～～共勉

题目：ISSUE 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."

Issue48提纲
1 个别的名人还是需要很多的普通人来支撑的，所以也不能完全依赖调查名人的结果。
2 活动的领导人是活动的代表，从领导人的身上我们就能推出那个年代人们大致的状况。
3 研究历史上参与了重大事件的众人是有难度的，搜集相关资料一般十分困难。
4 重大事件总是众人参与，人都是有个性的，不容易得到一致的结果。

Gandhi, Churchill, Martin Luther King all the famous leader among the important event in the history. We all just know their names, experiences, even birthday and hobbies but those, who have taken part in the significant movement we know little. Are historians focus too much on the special person, namely, they neglect the crowd of people behind the leader? Are the researches about the groups of people indispensable? In my personal view, it's really not that thorough necessary.

Albeit the movement cannot hold without the unknown people's supporting, historians still prefer to find more individuals' evidence to identify the events. The reason is complex, there are many difficulties there. Apparently, the number of attended people is extremely huge - may be ten thousands or even more, hence it is impossible to study every parter. If historians select some of them, there will raise other questions: what is the standard? how to choose them? Even though historians can choose the people the need, at that time they will find that there is little information about those people. In stead of that, a deluge of messages concerning the leader in front of them. Obviously, study on those leaders can make the event clearer.

Of course, there has the possibility that historians select some parter randomly and get enough information about them during that movement. At the same time the historians also may find that the individual's results are clear difference. Every person have their own personality, thus, they may have different purpose to join in the event. Like in an antiwar match someone support it may hate the general, some may do not want their children lose themselves' lives or some are pacifists. That is one hundred people have one hundred hamlets. Therefore the result will confuse those historians: which reason is the real and most important one? why the event has got such a success? what is the main point? Research into more individuals will make the things more complicate, meaningless and hard to find the answer.

And when you research those events you may wonder that: why Gandhi, Churchill, King can lead those people but not others?  Certainly, they have charisma and convincing to encourage them to fight for their right. When you reading those leader's early life, their childhood's environment, their parents their friends, their lover and other people or experiences which major factors influence their life, you might learn more about the event they held. Because the event is the reflection of what they think and which side they stand. For instance the president Lincoln who born in a poor family, during the time he is the president of Unite State, he emancipated slaves, he's attitude to slaves was deep influence by his childhood. Since those movement are held by them, the main ideas and the meaning must be according to leaders, and they change their mind a little can make the result totally different while the common parters cannot. If so, know more in term of the leader, you might understand the event deeper and meaningful.

To sum up, historians pay a avalanche of attention on those a few individuals can find the event's essential more easily and clearly. Looking for groups of people's opinions is unneeded and cannot get a warranted result. To the contrast those elites can bring what we need out, thus, historians should still study on those a few leaders. After all what the historians do is to find the movement's reason, the beginning the process and the ending but not a variety of different thinking.

elvis_xuUID: 181081

占座，我来改 [cracking gre小组]  ID  elvis_xu