issue48 永不言弃互改小组 by MYcolting

MYcoltingUID: 2563080

Does the study of history emphasize individuals too much? Were the most significant events and trends in history made by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten? The speaker claims so. In my view it is true that groups of people is actually the creators of history, but it should not be to blame that we place too much emphasis on individuals for it is impossible and unrealistic for us make researches on the populace.

Admittedly, our history of human indeed was made by the groups of people who are so ordinary that they have been forgotten for the reason that the advance of history takes place only when the majority of members of society--the groups of people--claim for their own needs and participate in the movement or revolution. Here is a case in point to illustrate my position. Napoleon, the hero of France, have said that "There is no word of impossibility in my dictionary." the saying seemingly is used to point out that success of crossing the mountains of Alps should be owe to Napoleon, however we can assume that if there was not a soldier, can our hero Napoleon carried so much goods and materials and conquer the Alps? It is clearly that he cannot accomplish it. Turn our attention to another example. Wars are more persuasive to reinforce my notion. If we cast a look back at wars in the past, whether rightly or wrongly, we have to admit that the victory of a war is completed by soldiers not their generals because that the definition of war is the fight between two groups of people. Simply put, no history would be created if there are no ordinary people.

Though I am in favor of the ordinary are founders of history, we cannot still overlook the importance of the famous previous in that celebrities accelerate the process of history. Consider, for example, Tomas Jefferson, chief drafter of the Declaration of Independence, made decision to purchase the state of Louisiana from France which enlarged the domination of The USA twice bigger than former. During the debate about whether to buy the land, Tomas Jefferson prevail over all dissenting what is proved to be significant for the development of America. Providing that if Jefferson did not insist his decision, it is anticipated that America would not become the most powerful country in the world so quickly and smoothly. At the same way, the similarities took place in human history again and again. Therefore, we can conclude that individuals also play important roles in the creation of history.

Moreover, it is very difficult and impossible for historians to pay more attention to the research of groups of people because of their forgotten identities. Historians of each era tend to document the famous not the ordinary groups. That is to say, placing too much emphasis on individuals is not on purpose which, in fact, is decided by objective situations. In addition, preeminent people always delegate the particular ideology of that period. Grounded in this reason, documenting the story of ordinary people makes no sense. In a word, we should not blame the study of history whose chief reason actually is the limit of document of history.

To sum up, I agree with the assertion of speaker that history was made by groups of people who had been forgotten by the contemporary society. Nevertheless, when faced with emphasizing too much on individuals, I think that we cannot choose the fist of the study of history for books of history always record the eminent people.