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."
When we study history, we basically do it by a method of studying historical individuals in definite times. Individuals in our history books are important because they are epitomes of their time. To this extent, what skeptics claim that we accentuate individuals' importance is not a resonable one. Our study on historical individuals do not hinder that we concede the fact that history is made by groups of people whose names have been lost.
The purpose of study of history requires that people study history from individuals in a certain time. Arnold Toynbee, a British historian who enjoys great reputation, made a comment in his book A Study of History: History is not a series of detailed facts. Historians should know what are main points and tell people what a period of time is overall about. Mr. Toynbee actually explained the necessity of studying individuals in history. Individuals, on whom people usually focus when study history, generally play important roles or think or behave typically in historical events and trends, they are the epitomes of the time they live in. When we think of American struggles for civil rights, we think of Martin Luther King Jr. Historians are curious about why Mr. King were able to agitate a series of parades in which millions of American took parts in. They find the key from King’s speech. In1950s and 1960s, there are mainly two suggestions to raise social status of the black people. Mr. King suggests black people should raise their status by a way of blending themselves into the whitey. Another voice is that black people should break away from the whitey, keep independence
and preserve culture from their ancestors. Historians discovered that American people adopted King’s proposition because his ideas are in accordance with wishes of black people in the majority. Obviously, by studying Martin Luther King, the attitudes towards the whitey of black people at that time were reflected and the main character of American society in 1960s was also vividly and profoundly presented.
The study of history is often expected to educate people living at present and our offspring. People usually tend to be educated by commemorating those famous individuals who contributed a lot to history. Another case is also about Mr. Martin Luther King. In 1963, Mr. King gave his speech at the Lincoln Memorial. His purpose is clear: To alert American people that the situation in their country is far from what their ancestors expected to be and Mr. King has a dream that may change the bad situation of their society and resumes the American dream. With no doubt, Lincoln Memorial helped audiences recall the brutal Civil War and other struggles their ancestors made and Mr. King therefore delivered his speech in a much more emotional way.
While supporting the methods of studying historical individuals, however, I do not mean to deny by that history is made by groups of people whose had lost their names. Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King did play large role in history. However, without countless soldiers in the Civil War who sacrificed their lives and those who supported Mr. King with actions, the
American history could be totally different. History failed to remember all people’s names in historical events because that is impossible and we offspring do not really have to remember all names.
As a matter of fact, most people, I myself included, would agree that history is made by large groups of people whose names had been long forgotten. Yet when we review and study history, we have to start from the study to individuals who are epitomes of their time. Our attitudes towards these two issues should never get confused.