Issue48 076G Myth小组第三次作业--Hermes

qhx17UID: 142079

TOPIC: ISSUE48 - "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."
WORDS: 596          TIME: 上午 12:45:00          DATE: 2006-10-24

The speaker makes a threshold claim that groups of people without identities, not the famous few made the significant events and trends in history. And then he concludes that people place too much emphasis on individual in the area of history. While I wholeheartedly agree with the threshold claim, the conclusion unfairly generalizes about the history study process. In fact, following the speaker's claim would actually confute the learning history, as well as impeding human ego development.

For the first place, I strongly agree the threshold claim about who made the history. Common sense infirm us that nothing can be made by only one person, especially the significant thing and trends which made an critical role in history. Without the public desire and the public support, a few people can not achieve the success in history. Moreover, the events and trends which were remembered always happened not only on individual but also on the masses. As far as we known,

For the second place, although I concede that the majority made the history instead the minority did, a few part who were written in history is reasonable and valuable to be used in the study of history. Obviously, the famous few has their own highlight such as the trigger point of the significant events or leading the movements or representative of the public, and so forth. Consider the important role of a few famous in history. For example, Joan of Arc, who led the resistance to force the English invader, is the representative of the French who looked forward to freedom.

For the third place, it is a scientific way to study the history through some trivial things written in record and some famous people and even some fragments unearthed. What history left us is fragments. And the effective way to understand the history and make use of history in human development is to extrapolate the history by the trivial things and some record about a few famous. From these a few famous, we might know the desire of the public in history, and the improvement of civilization, and the development of the economy. Moreover, we might recognize the background of the events and trends, the direct cause of the events and trends, and the result in both advantage and disadvantage of the events and trends. For example, we know the American history in 1960s and the major controversial problems in society by studying Martin Luther King who lead the black fought for the fair rights equal to the white; we learn the important role played by Renaissance in Europe and the whole world through a few famous in variety areas involve Michelangelo, Raphael, Cervantes and so on; we learn the means of the first industry reform by recognizing the importance played by Watt who invented the steam engine which is a milestone of the motivation history.  

However, it is important to strake a balance between a few famous and the major group without identities. Although the few is representative of the general, it not sufficiently amount to the integrity. We should better place emphasis both on individual and the major who was forgotten. If that is the case, we would make more effective study of history.

In conclusion, there is no doubt about the threshold that the most significant events and trends in history were made possible by the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten. But the ultimate claim that history study places excessive emphasis on individuals is problematic. If the author strake a balance between the both, I would agree absolutely.