issue48 同主题作业 回拍！

tangjihedeUID：2107695

0510G同主题写作第二期－－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."


提纲：
1．        毫无疑问，历史是英雄和大众共同创造的，许多历史事件缺一不可
2．        然而，历史学家侧重英雄并不等于对大众的忽视
a，        技术原因：没有研究大众的专著是因为史料的问题而没法详细研究大众
b，        英雄是大众的代表。对英雄的专门研究中也反映出大众。
结论：指责太多的关注给予英雄是不公正的。人们需要给予历史学家更多的理解，并转换视角对待英雄研究。

【不知道2a是不是有跑题嫌疑啊？？】

Most history books abound with names of geniuses and giants. Some critics hold that the study of history has placed too much emphasis on individuals; and it is high time, they argue, that we should divert our attention to the masses of people who actually made the significant events and trends possible. True, more historians keep devoting their endeavors to study the famous few; does this mean, however, that historians unfairly neglect to study the multitude? A close scrutiny will show that the answer is not so definite.

No doubt, the study of history should not be a simple inquiry of famous names where the role the masses of people played is derelict, for history would be hardly imagined without endeavors of groups of people. Although it is usually the giant figures that enlightened the public and led most significant events, the force of the multitude in many historic events is also decisive and indispensable. Take the French Revolution for instance. Many famous names are remembered. Without their criticism to Louie XVI’s despotic rein and their leadership during the revolution, this event would probably not have been so influential. On the other hand, without the battle (攻陷巴士底狱怎么说？？)…launched and joined by the common citizens of Paris, the revolution might not have happened either, or at least might not have been so involved. It is therefore the joint efforts of the multitude and the elite --not only a single aspect-- that creates the history.
  
However, the characteristic of historical studies constrains historians’ working on the mass as directly and enthusiastically as they focus on the famous. Historical research requires sufficient materials for historians to analyze and give their own opinion. It is relatively easy for historians to study celebrities, since they can appeal to vast materials such as biographies, files, legends and memoirs which are related to their research objects. When they research on the mass, unfortunately, generally too few records about the ideas, stories and background information of a common person have been left. The lack of materials usually makes a historian hardly to carry on his or her work. It is not their neglect of the multitude but first of all the scarceness of material, that usually accounts for the reason why historians devote more to the study of great figures.      

Moreover, whereas the case studies on the famous few abound in libraries and bookstores, this does not infer the multitude being completely neglected. On the contrary, the studies of famous figures in depth are also beneficial to know the masses of their coevals. In many events and trends few heroes can be regarded as representatives of their community. The reason why such figures were chosen by history reveals the common volition of that time. Why, for instance, Hitler was elected premier in Germany during 1930s and why no Hitler-like figure succeeded in the US? The deep study on Hitler will not only present his individual life, but also reveal popular ideas shared by the masses of German people. Since the history is created by both parties, a serious study of one side will inevitably come down to the other.  

In conclusion, it is not fair to criticize that too much emphasis has been placed on the elite. More sympathy is needed to understand historians’ work. And changing an angle of view, we can read the significance of the multitude from a monograph of celebrity.

578 words

@橘子@UID：2113502

Most history books abound with names of geniuses and giants. Some critics hold that the study of history has placed too much emphasis on individuals; and it is high time, they argue, that we should divert our attention to the masses of people who actually made the significant events and trends possible. True, more historians keep devoting their endeavors to study the famous few; does this mean, however, that historians unfairly neglect to study the multitude? A close scrutiny will show that the answer is not so definite. （看了第一段觉得你仅仅针对题目的第一句话提出了看法，是否忽略了第二句？仿佛不很全面）
No doubt, the study of history should not be a simple inquiry of famous names where the role the masses of people played is derelict,（不通吧？这个词可以这样用吗？） for history would be hardly imagined without endeavors of groups of people.（it could be hardly imagined that there are no endeavors of group of people in history.似乎更好些，可商榷） Although it is usually the giant figures that enlightened the public and led most significant events, the force of the multitude in many historic events is also decisive and indispensable. Take the French Revolution for instance. Many famous names are remembered. Without their criticism to Louie XVI’s despotic rein and their leadership during the revolution, this event would probably not have been so influential. On the other hand, without the battle (攻陷巴士底狱怎么说？？)（storming the bastille) …launched and joined by the common citizens of Paris, the revolution might not have happened either, or at least might not have been so involved. It is therefore the joint efforts of the multitude and the elite --not only a single aspect-- that creates the history.
  
However, the characteristic of historical studies constrains historians’ working on the mass as directly and enthusiastically as they focus on the famous. Historical research requires sufficient materials for historians to analyze and give their own opinion. It is relatively easy for historians to study celebrities, since they can appeal to vast materials such as biographies, files, legends and memoirs which are related to their research objects. When they research on the mass, unfortunately, generally too few records about the ideas, stories and background information of a common person have been left. The lack of materials usually makes a historian hardly [/color](impossible) to carry on his or her work. It is not their neglect of the multitude but first of all the scarceness of material, that usually accounts for the reason why historians devote more to the study of great figures.      

Moreover, whereas the case studies on the famous few abound in libraries and bookstores, this does not infer the multitude being completely neglected. On the contrary, the studies of famous figures in depth are also beneficial to know the masses of their coevals. In many events and trends few heroes can be regarded as representatives of their community. The reason why such figures were chosen by history reveals the common volition of that time. Why, for instance, Hitler was elected premier in Germany during 1930s and why no Hitler-like figure succeeded in the US? The deep study on Hitler will not only present his individual life, but also reveal popular ideas shared by the masses of German people. Since the history is created by both parties, a serious study of one side will inevitably come down to the other.  (希特勒出现在德国而非美国，能够说明希特勒是德国人们的代表吗？逻辑上有点不通吧？似乎因果关系应该是：因为德国的社会条件才产生了希特勒这个人）
In conclusion, it is not fair to criticize that too much emphasis has been placed on the elite. More sympathy is needed to understand historians’ work. And changing an angle of view, we can read the significance of the multitude from a monograph of celebrity.
有些论证不是很严密，似乎还能充实些，加油！

[ Last edited by @橘子@ on 2005-7-17 at 16:22 ]

@橘子@UID：2113502

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D101 我的同主题

tangjihedeUID：2107695

tangjihedeUID：2107695

(希特勒出现在德国而非美国，能够说明希特勒是德国人们的代表吗？逻辑上有点不通吧？似乎因果关系应该是：因为德国的社会条件才产生了希特勒这个人）

不通么:L

讨论一下：

德国的社会条件－>产生了希特勒
当时社会条件——>大多数德国人的倾向———>选择了希特勒，

我要论述的是希特勒身上反映了当时大多数德国人的想法这一层，应该没有逻辑不通的地方吧

weijun_tsUID：161033

先占位，再看

weijun_tsUID：161033

Most history books abound with names of geniuses and giants. Some critics hold that the study of history has placed too much emphasis on individuals; and it is high time, they argue, that we should divert our attention to the masses of people who actually made the significant events and trends possible. True, more historians keep devoting their endeavors to study the famous few; does this mean, however, that historians unfairly neglect to study the multitude? A close scrutiny will show that the answer is not so definite. [(第1段感觉少了作者的第2个分论点，有点模板痕迹，但是改得已经看不出来了哦)]

No doubt, the study of history should not be a simple inquiry of famous names where  the role the masses of people played is derelict, for history would be hardly imagined without endeavors of groups of people. Although it is usually the giant figures that enlightened the public and led most significant events, the force of the multitude in many historic events is also decisive and indispensable. Take the French Revolution for instance. Many famous names are remembered. Without their criticism to Louie XVI’s despotic rein and their leadership during the revolution, this event would probably not have been so influential. On the other hand, without the battle (攻陷巴士底狱怎么说？？ [the Bastille)] …launched and joined by the common citizens of Paris, the revolution might not have happened either, or at least might not have been so involved. It is therefore the joint efforts of the multitude and the elite --not only a single aspect-- that creates （ [create] ）the history.
  
However, the characteristic of historical studies constrains historians’ working on the mass as directly and enthusiastically as they focus on the famous. Historical research requires sufficient materials for historians to analyze and give their own opinion. It is relatively easy for historians to study celebrities, since they can appeal to vast materials such as biographies, files, legends and memoirs which are related to their research objects. When they research on the mass, unfortunately, generally too few records about the ideas, stories and background information of a common person have been left. The lack of materials usually makes a historian hardly to [TO不要] carry on his or her work. It is not their neglect of the multitude but first of all the scarceness of material, that usually accounts for the reason why historians devote more to the study of great figures.      

Moreover, whereas the case studies on the famous few abound in libraries and bookstores, this does not infer the multitude being completely neglected. On the contrary, the studies of famous figures in depth are also beneficial to know the masses of their coevals. In many events and trends few [(most)] heroes can be regarded as representatives of their community. The reason why such figures were chosen by history reveals the common volition of that time. Why, for instance, Hitler was elected premier in Germany during 1930s and why no Hitler-like figure succeeded in the US? The deep study on Hitler will not only present his individual life, but also reveal popular ideas shared by the masses of German people. Since the history is created by both parties, a serious study of one side will inevitably come down to the other.  

In conclusion, it is not fair to criticize that too much emphasis has been placed on the elite. More sympathy is needed to understand historians’ work. And changing an angle of view, we can read the significance of the multitude from a monograph of celebrity.
感觉你的用词很好哦，但是你这篇文章好象有一个论点没有写到哦，结尾也没有提到，共同加油！
我的水平有限，改错莫怪哦，谢谢！！