[Big Fish]02月26日Issue48--By swolf54

swolf54UID: 2421931

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."

Individual or groups people, which should receive more focus from scholars in the study of history? Some people argue that individuals are more important, as they play vital roles in the crossroad of history--thus they should be set focuse. Yet, others hold the opposite attitude that the most significant events and tends in history were made by groups, who are often neglected by the current history study. As for me, though I concede that the famous few do have huge effect to the development of history, however, the ordinary people are relatively more important in the study of history.
Admittedly, regarded as the representative of specific era, famous few play important roles in history study. Undeniable, some individuals do affect the trend and development of history to some degrees. Take George Washington, father of the United States, as an example. In the American Revolutionary war, if he failed to lead the Continental Army to win the finale victory and gained the independent of United State, the going down history for American might be totally different. Therefore, considering George Washington’s great contribution to America, history study puts emphasis in him for granted. Besides, famous persons’ words and behavior are representatives of their period and act as symbol of different eras. For specific instance, Michael Jackson is the one of the most well-known musician of the late 20th century. As the King of Pop, he attracts not only fans but also musical historians, who want to comprehend the past history by identifying the characteristics of famous musicians like Michael Jackson. Thus, considering the crucial effect of the famous person in history, it is natural for many historians to pay attention on them.
However, too much emphasis on individual study easily results in hasty generalization. Besides famous few, it is also necessary to set focus on the ordinary ones. Indeed, the history is formed of both the ordinary and the elite. As one of the historian professors in my university said: "Elites only characterize part of the history, if you want to get an integral comprehension of that era, the most precious material are memoirs written by ordinary people, which document every aspect of life." Therefore, in the study of history, ordinary people should to be paid more close attention, after all, they are indispensible part of our society.
Furthermore, as the majority of society, ordinary people have tremendous effects toward the society. In fact, behind the famous people, it is the ordinary people who truly promote the development of history. For instance, the greatest discoveries in physics are often based on various experiments, which cannot be conducted without relative equipments. Yet, once a discovery is found, whole society always focus only on the discoverers, but neglects the inventors of the experimental facilities and other scientists who also contribute in the discovery. As a consequence,   due to their great contributions, ordinary people should not be neglected in history study.
All in all, for the crucial and indispensable roles ordinary people play in the history stage, they should also be emphasized in the study of history. That helps us to find the distinct trace of history development.

SansouciUID: 2755036

Individual or groups people, which should receive more focus from scholars in the study of history? Some people argue that individuals are more important, as they play vital roles in the crossroad of history--thus they should be set focused. Yet, others hold the opposite attitude that the most significant events and tends in history were made by groups, who are often neglected by the current history study. As for me, though I concede that the famous few do have huge effect to the development of history, however, the ordinary people are relatively more important in the study of history.
Admittedly, regarded as the representative of specific era, famous few play important roles in history study. Undeniable, some individuals do affect the trend and development of history to some degrees. Take George Washington, father of the United States, as an example. In the American Revolutionary war, if he failed to lead the Continental Army to win the finale victory and gained the independent of United State, the going down history for American might be totally different. Therefore, considering George Washington’s great contribution to America, history study puts emphasis in him for granted. Besides, famous persons’ words and behavior are representatives of their period and act as symbol of different eras. For specific instance, Michael Jackson is the one of the most well-known musician of the late 20th century. As the King of Pop, he attracts not only fans but also musical historians, who want to comprehend the past history by identifying the characteristics of famous musicians like Michael Jackson. Thus, considering the crucial effect of the famous person in history, it is natural for many historians to pay attention on them.
However, too much emphasis on individual study easily results in hasty generalization. Besides famous few, it is also necessary to set focus on the ordinary ones. Indeed, the history is formed of both the ordinary and the elite. As one of the historian professors in my university said: "Elites only characterize part of the history, if you want to get an integral comprehension of that era, the most precious material are memoirs written by ordinary people, which document every aspect of life." Therefore, in the study of history, ordinary people should to be paid more close attention, after all, they are indispensible part of our society.
Furthermore, as the majority of society, ordinary people have tremendous effects toward the society. In fact, behind the famous people, it is the ordinary people who truly promote the development of history. For instance, the greatest discoveries in physics are often based on various experiments, which cannot be conducted without relative equipments. Yet, once a discovery is found, whole society always focus only on the discoverers, but neglects the inventors of the experimental facilities and other scientists who also contribute in the discovery. As a consequence,   due to their great contributions, ordinary people should not be neglected in history study.
All in all, for the crucial and indispensable roles ordinary people play in the history stage, they should also be emphasized in the study of history. That helps us to find the distinct trace of history development.
语言灵活，行文流畅。先让步后论证，很不错~值得借鉴

SansouciUID: 2755036

本来修改有做红色标记，回复了就没有了~
不过就个把单词拼错了而已.

swolf54UID: 2421931

3# Sansouci
谢谢！我自己再检查一下