高频issue48 求拍砖！

sooyungUID：2661750

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."

Does the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals, while the most significant events and trends in history were made mostly by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten? I don’t think so. Throughout the history spotted with big events and trends, there were always few person standing unmoved and knows better than else that which road they should take. Thus, I don’t agree with the speaker’s assertion and strongly believe the individuals are worthwhile to be emphasized by history.
At the very beginning, I need to elaborate the qualities of the individuals who were recorded and emphasized by history and elicit some common characteristics those persons do have of which the value is much bigger than what the speaker claimed “groups of people”. As soon as skimming over such historical individuals, we can recognize that they were excellent in intelligence, or were keeping outstanding skills in socialization, or were highly developed in educating people. To be surprised, these people were commonly grasping the visions which can help them look further over the spatial area and time which apparently excelled common mass. Thus, no matter individually, or being a leader, they all performed in a splendid way which open and enlighten descendants. Moreover, they left more intellectual treasures and inner resources than the mediocre, which enlightened later generations.
Secondly, I would need to rectify the misunderstanding that the speaker have had about great historical events and trends. When measuring the composition of these affairs, the speaker seems to focus more on the integrity of the whole, not that the central element of them. If such measurement is reasonable, then we should study about all of the organs and cells of a bird, not the wings which enlightened us most in idea of making planes. President Clinton, played central role in appealing and supporting the third technology revolution in America without knowing all about the technologies, because he had the will to revive USA economy to restore its superpower in the world. In other words, what we remember and learn from history is the main spirit and soul the events want to tell people, and these things are surely diffused and publicized by elites.
Further, what the speaker wants to emphasize seems to be the inequality between the individuals who were in the central status and the hardness of thousands of participants in the events. However, such comparison would be inappropriate merely based on hardness and time the participants contributed. To better impel the whole activity, several people who have greater insight and leadership than others would inevitably grow up to vanguards and marshal the whole forces. The first emperor of Qin dynasty, was standing in the center of the Great Wall---though huge amount of lives were sacrificed there, of which the most important function remembered by history was its firm defend against the invaders from west, and such action made by the emperor will leave precious properties for later generation in military knowledge and the will to protect homelands. Thus, what we must remember most is not the every name of the participants, but the spirit and resourcefulness and philosophy the affair tell us, which was originally diffused by the central elites.
In sum, the speaker lacks a profound understanding to the qualities of the individuals who played a vital role in historical events and tendencies, and inappropriately compares the value of few elites and the whole participants. In my observation, history emphasizes few individuals because they influence more people to join in and impel the events, and further, enlighten later generations. In the final analysis, I fundamentally object the speaker’s assertion.

那麻烦大家了！