0910G[North America Flying]Issue48 by fake

fake2009UID: 2631119

题目：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."
字数：532                                            用时：00:43:26                                     日期：2009-7-18 10:59:18

We remember and get information from the remarkable historical events due to the emphasis put on the individuals. Admittedly, those events and trends in history were made by the famous few and the groups of the followers. Though we only tend to remember the few.

For one thing, for the emphasis of the few, we can remember those events, thus be offered inspirations and intentions to make achievements. Individuals be remembered, serve as symbols, spiritual ones. Especially in those movements which need to be conducted by quite a few people, those few individuals always play indispensable role. In the foundation of the Republic of China, Chairman Mao, as a military and also spiritual leader, guided the people to drive out the invaders and found their own nation. However, it's not recommendable to follow elitism, which embraces an idea that put too much emphasis on several sparkling individuals, while neglecting the great impulse of large groups of followers.

Though, the great events are conducted by groups of people. From the perspective of the demands of society, the study of the few individuals is more satisfying. There's no doubt that society needs more leaders to initiate or advocate a trend, instead of followers. More people who are initiative and revolutionary could think critically towards the general social condition, to better and perfect it.

The fact is that, the study of history is a process of generalization and extract. Yes, it's after this process that can figure out the valuable thoughts an event or trend left to later generations. In my opinion, it's beneficial and proper way to study the history. A collection of the name list of all attendants of one movement is obviously of no meaning, let alone the significance to descendants. In addition, the individuals selected should be representative and comprehensive. By this I mean that, those people should be selected by different typical groups. For instance, the Industrial Revolution experienced a change of society, in literature, science, economy, etc. When we study this period of history, we should cover every conceivable aspects, or social groups, to get information of the history in which the meaning of history study lies in.

However, as far as I am concerned, the study of the few individuals and the study of groups of people are not contradictory. Their ultimate goal is identical, to closely touch upon that specific period of time, what happened, what emerged, what disappear, etc. The reason why they became a group, there exist the potential recognition and appreciation among them. If they often hold the opposite ideas, the group wouldn't be cohesive enough to succeed and make a difference. In this sense, whether the emphasis is put on individuals or groups, the acquisition of the property our ancestors left to us wouldn't change or be affected.

In sum, the study of historical individuals should be emphasized. The society needs more people to be initiative and revolutionary. Yet, the significance of the followers cannot be neglected. However, the study of whether individuals or groups are not contradictory to each other, they both benefit the latter generation. When we get information from the history, we should take advantage of them to better today's world.

haunteagleUID: 2609432

不得不说这篇文章读起来比较吃力，某些差别很微妙，读起来不够流畅

第二段，个人因为是当时时代的代表而被记住
第三段，中间这段非常突兀，思路一下被硬生生砍断了，讲历史由大部分人创造
第四段，历史是归纳和总结，于是我们应该研究被总结出来的
第五段，研究了个人也就是研究了群体

整体问题在于思路框架不够明确
我感觉文章可以合并一下
态度是应该研究少部分人
1.        对历史研究的要求导致我们只能研究少部分人的行为而不能研究全体的人的行为
2.        少部分人仅仅是研究的一个代表，作为历史的承载者，作为群体的代表者，研究他们足够知道历史走势了
3.        但实际上历史还是有整个群体承担的，代表着仅仅是群体一份子，起到了引导的作用

fake2009UID: 2631119

We remember and get information from the remarkable historical events due to the emphasis put on the individuals. Admittedly, those events and trends in history were made by the famous few and the groups of the followers. Though we only tend to remember the few. And it's beneificial to focus on the few individuals in the study of history..

For one thing, for the emphasis of the few, we can remember those events, thus be offered inspirations and intentions to make achievements. Individuals be remembered, serve as symbols, spiritual ones. Especially in those movements which need to be conducted by quite a few people, those few individuals always play indispensable role. In the foundation of the Republic of China, Chairman Mao, as a military and also spiritual leader, guided the people to drive out the invaders and found their own nation. However, it's not recommendable to follow elitism, which embraces an idea that put too much emphasis on several sparkling individuals, while neglecting the great impulse of large groups of followers. From the perspective of the demands of society, the study of the few individuals is more satisfying. There's no doubt that society needs more leaders to initiate or advocate a trend, instead of followers. More people who are initiative and revolutionary could think critically towards the general social condition, to better and perfect it.

In addition, the individuals selected should be representative and comprehensive. By saying this I mean that, those people should be selected from different typical groups to form a picture as comprehensive as possible. For instance, the Industrial Revolution experienced a change of society, in literature, science, economy, etc. When we study this period of history, we should cover every conceivable aspects, or social groups, to get information of the history in which the meaning of history study lies in.


The fact is that, the study of history is a process of generalization and extract. Yes, it's after this process that can figure out the valuable thoughts an event or trend left to later generations. In my opinion, it's beneficial and proper way to study the history. A collection of the name list of all attendants of one movement is obviously of no meaning, let alone the significance to descendants.

However, as far as I am concerned, the study of the few individuals and the study of groups of people are not contradictory. Their ultimate goal is identical, to closely touch upon that specific period of time, what happened, what emerged, what disappear, etc. The reason why they became a group, there exist the potential recognition and appreciation among them. If they often hold the opposite ideas, the group wouldn't be cohesive enough to succeed and make a difference. In this sense, whether the emphasis is put on individuals or groups, the acquisition of the property our ancestors left to us wouldn't change or be affected.

In sum, the study of historical individuals should be emphasized. The society needs more people to be initiative and revolutionary. Yet, the significance of the followers cannot be neglected. However, the study of individuals and groups are not contradictory to each other, they both benefit the latter generation. When we get information from the history, we should take advantage of them to better today's world.