Issue48 dallenlin

dallenlinUID: 2247050

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: 522          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2007-2-26

1.       No one will deny that the crucial role of a minuscule of elites plays in pushing the development of history.
2.       However, toady’s history places too much emphasis on individuals that mislead us diverging from the objectively evaluating those luminaries and do raise a series of problems.
3.       Thus, historians should equally present due weight on the groups of people, lead us to hear the voice of those people, since they are also important in the history.


  There is a public controversy nowadays over the issue of the history places too much emphasis on individuals so that ignores the contribution of groups of people, which lead to gradually forgetting their identities. To my point of view, I fundamentally agree with the speaker insofar as the history supposed to assign equal emphasis on the groups of people as well as famous few. However, it is true that famous few do play a important role in those events.

  Doubtless, any informed people will disagree that the crucial role the famous few play in pushing the development of the history and continually advancing of the society. Yes, it is true. As a widely accepted truism, any events can go without a leader, who is the key for the triumph of an event. To illustrate this reasoning which will be cited-the experience of Lincoln, who is the leader of the civil war, it is the very factor of his insight, his wisdom, and his charisma that solidify region of elites struggling for the war, which results the final victory- can furnish an compelling examples. Or consider Ghandi, adhered to his own beliefs, at last, lead Indian people to win the independent by nonviolent resistance. Why does history always dramatically emphasize them? The answer is tangible. Without their leading, just as a symphony orchestra without a conductor, hardly can you require them to perform melody music. So, indisputably, so important is the famous few that we are supposed to place enough emphasis on them.

  However, even though they are significant in those events, we should no pay too much emphasis on them, otherwise, a great number of jeopardy will come after. By emphasizing the endeavor of those famous few, when studying the history, we are aptly misled and diverged from a objectively evaluation of their works, rather, we are more believed in the individual's power when solving problems, and, ignore the collaboration with others, which results from the value of self-centered.

  On the other hand, historians are supposed to place due weight to other people's works, and lead us to hear the voice of those groups of people, in turn, pay equal honor on them. Admittedly, few leaders can success without those people's helps around him. At first glance, no one will deny that it is the very elites, through their struggling, to promote the process of those significant events, nevertheless, the most important power for success, indeed, spring from those common people. Just consider that, if not the assistance and sacrifices of those people, can Lincoln win the Civil War by himself? Or Gandi can lead to the independent by himself? Of cause not. Common people are the real essence of the success. Therefore, we should equally emphasize on them as well.

  To sum up, these three reasons discussed above sometimes integrate to form a coherent whole, thus becoming more persuasive than anyone separated. So, any thinking person must believe that while pay attention to the endeavor of famous few, we also should concern with the groups of people contributing to success of such significant events. Indisputably, both are deserved to equal emphasis.