Issue48 [戮力] by Dacy

DacyUID: 2272369

"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."

观点，注重伟人的研究，适度的研究无名氏。1，伟人应该被给予大部分的关注
2，但是不能忽视其他非伟人，因为对它们的研究可以更好的观察历史
3，但是，对这些人的研究往往毫无效率，所以重点仍放在伟人身上，对这些人研究要较少的重视。

I don’t agree with the speaker’s contention that it was unfamous people who made significant events. I am fully convinced that historians should focus most of their attention on famous individuals, because it is them who have made significant impact on changing and developing the history, and the other groups of people are just the assistants. However, this is not to say that I argue that the study of history can ignore the effect of other groups of people, for the reason that the history does not solely consist of well-known individuals, and with the study of unfamous masses, we can observe a more comprehensive history.

To begin with, I think that the famous few deserve our most of attention, for the reason that in my point of view, it is famous few who made the significant events in history, no matter directly or indirectly. Consider some examples about the great men who contribute directly to the significant event. Using the telescope, Galileo observed and discovered the sunspots, mountains and valleys on the Moon, the four largest satellites of Jupiter, and the phases of Venus, which contribute greatly to the improvement of astronomy. Newton, established the well-known Newtonian mechanics laws upon which the classical mechanics can develop. They all directly made a considerable contribution in science. And consider some examples about indirectly contributions of famous people. In WWII, it is Winston Churchill’s strong leadership and superb speech skill that inspires the numerous soldiers and leads the England to success. Although it is not leader but the soldiers who battle in the war field, without the leader’s correct leadership and inspirit, they cannot triumph in war. Therefore, the great men who play a leadership role in the history should also be placed much emphasis.

Beside, in my point of view, although we should pay most of our attention on elite people, the study of unfamous people is not meaningless. With the study of groups of people not involved in famous individuals, people may obtain a more comprehensive history. For example, if historians need to know people’s psychological activity and living condition, merely study of the elite is not enough for the reason that the life of celebrities cannot represent ordinary people’s, so it is obvious that the study of the masses is needed. It is said that in the early 1950’s, historians who studied the preindustrial Europe, in order to know the people’s thought and feeling, investigated the non-elite masses and finally achieved their purpose. Therefore, at this angle, the inquiry of the masses has its merits.

Nonetheless, the study about the non-elite masses would be very difficult, for the reason that there have little extant records about them. If placing too much emphasis on them, the efficiency of the history study would be very low. In contrary, the materials about the famous people are very ample. Accordingly, study about the key individuals would be more time saving and practical, thus the study of them should be the mainstream of study on history, and the study of others should be paid less attention.

All in all, study of history should place much emphasis on the key individuals, while the research of other people should not be ignored absolutely. Although this study may be hard, it is true that some appropriate studies of them would bring us a more comprehensive history.