0706G同主题写作第七期——Issue48

expire7UID: 2160574

"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."


以下是staralways版主的分析（小部分进行了改动），

一、题目类型
    历史类

二、题目出现频率
      到目前为止，在机经中出现频率为133次。

三、题目分析：
      这道题目由两句话组成，所以可以归类为“1 + 1”类型的题目。因此，对于这道题目的分析可以首先通过单独分析这两句话来找到破题点。
      先看第一句：The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. 这一句里的关键词不是别的，正是加了下划线的“too much”。对于这样一个表示程度的词，我们可以首先问自己一个问题：历史研究中对于个人的重视程度是否过度了？在这里，根据每个人对于这个问题的看法，有的会同意这种说法，而其他的可能会反对。因此在第一句话中，首先出现了两种观点。
      分析了第一句话，回答了第一个问题，让我们再来看第二句话：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.对于出题者来说，第一句就相当于背景陈述，而他真正的观点是在这一句。这是一个历史由谁来创造的问题。我们仍然可以有一系列的问题来问自己：（1）那些被遗忘的人民群众是否参与了创造历史的进程？（2）如果参与了，他们的贡献有多大？（3）如果参与了，他们在哪些方面的贡献比较突出？（4）注意这句话中加了下划线的“most significant”，如果人民群众参与了创造历史的进程，那么对于这些事关历史进程的最重大的事情上，他们的贡献程度又是如何呢？
      对于人民群众这一方面，我们可以问这些问题；同样，对于the famous few，我们也可以问这些问题。而对于这些问题的回答，就可以构成文章的主干。
      另外要提醒的一点是，“1 + 1”类型的题目虽然可以写的内容多，但是也正因为内容多了，各部分之间的衔接就显得格外重要。例如这题，如何在写作中把两句话的内容紧密的联系在一起，也是文章能否得到高分的一个关键。四、网友的讨论
      以前版上很活跃、水平也很高的G猫同学曾经拿这道题目去请教她在美国的朋友。虽然当时她问的问题主要是针对issue开头的写法问题，但是她朋友的回复中，也加入了对这道题的看法，所以贴上来，希望对大家能有所帮助。原贴的连接：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... BG%C3%A8&page=1。

G猫提的问题：

QUOTE:
Now I have question about the beginning of the issue. I feel that it is impossible for me to write an good beginning in such a short time. there may be two choices. one is to prepare a template, which is full of junk words; the other is the simplest beginning, just state my theme with very simple words (seems very ugly).

I give you two examples:
(1)template:
In a modern society, people always face the dilemma to choose whether AA
A or BBB. This problem is the much debated one in that it affects every
body in their daily lives. People may prefer one to another although so
me may have no opinions about it at all. Before rendering my opinion, I
think it is necessary to take a glance at the arguments of both sides.

(2)the very simple beginning:
In the history study, placing much emphasis on individuals is necessary and now this emphasis is not too much. In addition, the study of history does not forget the role of groups of people in the significant historical events and tends.

回复：

QUOTE:
I think the template is better than the theme. I think that the review books recommend that you [do not rewrite the question statement in your introduction 对，这就是版主们一直强调的不要restate开头]. The problem with the template introduction, however, is that it will force you to present both sides of the argument. I think that this is [not necessary, 对, 没有必要两方面都说呀], and your score will depend only on how well you present one single opinion. So for example, if the statement is "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," [下面是构思的方法, 大家可以参考, 我觉得很有用] first think of the viewpoint you will write about. It does not really matter whether you agree or disagree with the statement, but how well you argue your opinion. So usually I will take about 2-3 minutes to think about which opinion I can think of more arguments and I will write them down. For example:

Emphasis of individuals good:
--easier for students to remember history
--allows students to appreciate specific characters and use them as role models
--educates students on important prominent figures in politics and history

Emphasis of individuals negative:
--does not acknowledge groups of individuals who were equally important
--ignores the importance of society's influences
--does not acknowledge the full extent of difficulty and conflict that occurred

In this case, I think that my arguments for agreeing with the statement that emphasis on indviduals is negative are better. So, I may write an introduction that acknowledges the other viewpoint, but mostly introduces my own opinion. For example:

    "As the author of the statement indicates, the study of history often involves emphasizing the achievements of specific individuals who were important to specific historical movements or events.  Pointing out specific individuals can be a positive tool in educating students in history.  Central figures in history help students to remember specific events. In addition, they give students specific figures that can be emulated as role models. Even so, however, I agree with the author of the statement that there is too much emphasis on indiviuals and that groups of people who are equally important are forgotten.  For example, Abraham Lincoln is often memorialized as the central figure in the Civil War and the emancipation of American slaves. Emphasizing Lincoln as a central figure in this large movement fails to acknowledge the actions of thousands of other individuals, including the slaves themselves, that was integral in the Civil War. In addition, placing emphasis on a single individual may cause students to ignore the importance of the history itself. They may remember Lincoln and his name, but fail to understand the gravity of the slave situation that occurred at that time."

[这种开头我在argument的6分范文里有看到过，觉得这种开头显得很有逻辑,而且接下来的文章层次也会很清晰.不过这段开头的长度赶的上body了.不过大家可以发现, 她在开头部分已经部分展开了,对于我们来说,我觉得这种开头的思想可以借鉴, 也是容易学习的,不过没必要像她一样在开头就对观点进行一定程度的展开, 这个至少对我来说很难, 本来就没多少例子好举,都放开头了, body干脆没话说了, 要么就是说来说去都是重复.

说到这里, 她这种举例的方式我们可以在body里借鉴. 就是怎么让一个general, vague的观点具体化, 并且focus on你的观点.举例说来, 从individual 具体到Lincoln, 从group of people 具体到slaves, central figure 对应too much emphasis, 而forgotten对应fail to acknowledge, 没有一句多余的话——这就是逻辑.

希望对大家能有帮助：）]

This kind of introduction may seem difficult to write, but as you can see, I simply took the short notes I wrote about each opinion and summarized them into an introduction paragraph. In addition, I used a specific example to illustrate the argument of my essay. I think if you practice this kind of introduction, it will become very easy very quickly.

五、相关素材
Can individuals change history?

MOST HISTORY books treat historical change as the accomplishment of great men (and an occasional woman). According to this view, the movers and shakers in history are the Napoleons, Lincolns and FDRs of the world.

This view is also applied to revolutions. George Washington, Robespierre, Lenin--these men shaped history, and the actions of the masses of people in these revolutions were merely events scripted by their leaders.

The only difference between the treatment of Washington and Lenin as great men is that Washington, as a leader of the American Revolution, gets a plus sign in front of his name, whereas Lenin, a leader of a working-class revolution, gets a minus sign.

The opposite, though less popular, view is that history follows a path which no individual can influence--"great men" are merely agents for its realization. According to this view, individuals and their actions are purely products of historical conditions.

Had there been no Napoleon Bonaparte, another figure would have played the same role, because historical conditions in the period of the early 18th century demanded a "Napoleon." "We cannot make history," wrote Bismarck, taking this to its extreme. "We must wait while it is being made."

The first view serves as an ideological justification for the rule by a minority--"great" kings, presidents and leaders have special qualities that give them the ability to rule whereas the rest of the "herd" must follow. But the second view can also serve as a means to justify brutal exploitation and suffering. How can you fault a ruler whose actions are historically determined and therefore beyond his control?

Both of these ideas are mistaken, though they contain elements of truth. There are, for example, a few cases where different scientists working independently of each other made the same discovery--historical conditions were ripe for it.

Individuals do indeed make history. But they cannot influence society or history in any direction they so choose. Individuals cannot exert their will independently of the social conditions in which they find themselves. "Individuals can influence the fate of society," wrote the Russian Marxist George Plekhanov, "by virtue of definite traits in their nature. Their influence is sometimes very considerable, but the possibility of its being exercised and its extent are determined by society’s organization and the alignment of its forces.

"An individual’s character is a ‘factor’ in social development," concludes Plekhanov, "only where, when and to the extent that social relations permit it to be."

Many examples come to mind. It may, for example, have been possible for a philosopher in ancient Greece to dream of circumnavigating the globe, but the technology and knowledge for such a voyage did not exist until the 15th century.

An early Christian may have dreamed of a society free of exploitation where wealth is shared, but only with the development of modern capitalism have the material conditions been created which make such a world possible.

For ideas expressed by groups or individuals to become a material force that can affect the outcome of history, therefore, there must be both the objective conditions and the subjective conditions. To put it crudely: if there is not enough food to go around, then my dream of feeding everyone is not realizable. But if there is enough food to go around--and capitalist production has now made that a reality--there still must be the subjective conditions to make a world free of hunger possible.

There must be a level of consciousness and organization among a sufficient number of people to transform social relations and create a new system of production and distribution. In this scenario, the role of individuals can be decisive at certain key moments--but only if they are a link in a chain of other factors. I’ll come back to this in my next article.

文章转自：http://www.socialistworker.org/2 ... MakingHistory.shtml。

通过以上Star版主的分析，相信大家都对这题目有了一定的认识，以后的深入就要靠大家的共同努力，欢迎大家将自己对题目理解、提纲贴出来讨论。;d:

六、本期规则
1.每个发同主题的GTER，请按照正确的发帖格式发帖。https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=208286&extra=page%3D1格式不正确者，版主和板油都有权利不修改其习作。
2.回帖只留下链接和中文提纲（中文提纲有利于互相修改时候浏览和参阅），不需要回复全文。
3.请第一个参与同主题的GTER修改下一个参与的，依次类推，保证每个参与者的作文都能够得到修改。e.g.第一楼回帖的kito贴了习作，第二楼的秘方没有贴习作，第三楼的YY贴了习作。则kito修改YY的。
4.每个回帖的GTER，如果你参与了互改小组，请说明你的互改小组。
5.请不要一楼贴超过一篇习作。斑竹有权力删除或者修改。不允许占楼不贴习作的，这样自己的习作会被延误修改。楼上的GTER可以直接跳过占贴楼修改。

七、习作参考
上次的同主题链接 https://bbs.gter.net/thread-300690-1-2.html
果小冻 https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=394353&highlight=issue48
苯石 https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=500396&highlight=issue48
Autome  https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=326875&highlight=issue48

mckinseyUID: 2285137

sf

gpdaxiongUID: 2173696

占位

AuscoolUID: 2304104

我以前写过这篇，只改了一堆错字:funk: ，贴这儿了！
欢迎留链互拍！开始好像链接有问题，现在重新粘了一个，
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=618426&extra=page%3D1
提纲：1.群众在历史上起重要作用
         2.但在有影响意义的历史事件中，其实是少数人物真正其关键作用
         3.一些重大历史潮流也是源于个人的灵感。

[ 本帖最后由 Auscool 于 2007-3-1 12:44 编辑 ]

kito9695UID: 209685

首席辛苦了:handshake

sunwei0UID: 2227404

太好了，正要写这篇呢，谢楼主了！

11yaoyaoUID: 177037

UP

挖卡卡

SkysijieUID: 2233317

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=618273&extra=page%3D1
1.社会确实太过于强调少数的名人
2.但是历史重要事件和趋势的创造却是一群人的功劳
   b1.当今     &        b2.原来

[ 本帖最后由 Skysijie 于 2007-3-1 09:10 编辑 ]

feibingxUID: 2212956

http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=618540


提纲：
1、  历史之研究过分强调个人是不对的，因为没有个人能够在没有群众支持的情况下取得成功。例子：林肯大叔就无数黑奴的支持
2、  然而，历史更多的还是由个人主导的。因为群众是必须要有领导才能书写历史。例子：微软和比尔、芝加哥公牛和乔丹；科学领域更是个人的贡献居多，NEE。
3、  所以说，研究历史应该注重于个人。三个理由：1、历史关于个人的史料更多，研究更有帮助和容易。2、群众是由个人领导的，所以研究个人同时也是在研究团体。3、研究个人能够使人们学习其精神，起到榜样作用

[ 本帖最后由 feibingx 于 2007-3-1 15:38 编辑 ]

GriSSom.ZZXUID: 2234108

......有一点搞不明白的是,那位native speaker说的是不是should or should not place much more emphasis on individuals,题目的意思是be or be not(即应该论述是不是过于强调个人,而不是"过于强调的"好与坏......),是不是有点串啊?
    当然,前提是不是一定要这样去考虑这个"1+1"题目的前面一个"1",而且如果说他是或不是,怎么说明呢?都不清楚历史研究有哪些重点可以emphasis哎~~,更不用说这些去和individuals比说明是不是过分强调individuals了......
    感觉大多数文章都直接跳过这个论述后面,这样应该没关系吧......

唯美笑痴UID: 2275335

待会发上来

racyUID: 2135171

UP

赞之

WorrilessUID: 2270067

http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewth ... &extra=page%3D1

qfd004UID: 2197703

25 号写的，平衡观点
提纲
1 群众重要作用

2个人重要作用

3都重要

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

原帖由 GriSSom.ZZX 于 2007-3-1 15:17 发表
......有一点搞不明白的是,那位native speaker说的是不是should or should not place much more emphasis on individuals,题目的意思是be or be not(即应该论述是不是过于强调个人,而不是"过于强调的" ...

同问，这个现在的历史研究过于看重个人部分？这个应该怎么论述呢？没有想法啊，谁来说说看