[Work] AWA no.37
Topic:
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 the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten.
============================================================================
I think the speaker over generalized the statement that too much
emphasis is placed on individuals when it comes to studying history. The main
purpose to study history is not to memorize the names of people, but to gain
experiences from it as an inference. Therefore, I do not think it necessary
to include too many characteristics in the history materials available to
everyone.
Simplification occurs naturally in the study of a fact. I admit that a
great achievement can not be reached alone. Even so, the people to be
remembered in the history are meant to be the one, or the few with relatively
critical influences in the event. Take the presidential election for example.
There must be a variety of people working for a candidate, which is brain
trust. They may be observers, proposing their ideas and suggestions in
reaction to the polls and the strategies of the opponent. They are such an
essential part in the election that no candidate can succeed without them.
They do contribute greatly to the success or failure of the election, but the
candidate whom they work for is the one to be famous in the history. That is
to say, while we know that the outcome of some important events can be
attributed to a group of people, we do not think they deserve more intention
or higher values than the leader or the "main character" historically.
In addition, what is needed for historians may not be equally needed for
readers of a history affair. Details are required for a research, while
readers want to have an outline before trivial information. The leader,
usually the representative of some event in the history, can be seen easily
as a representation of that event, which benefits the studying of history. In
general, when people read history books, they read the how the story goes
before memorizing the characters. For instance, when we read the story of
Normandy Invasion, what comes to our mind? General Eisenhower. In this way,
we can have more understanding of the event by connecting the war to the most
important person. Imagine what it would be like when we open a textbook and
find it full of numerous names of the "celebrities" related to some fact-the
readers will lost the interest to continue to read! I agree that historians
have the need to find out every fact and person involved in an event, but
those information are not necessarily attractive to its readers and possibly
lead to the loss of the interest to read!
In brief, the contribution of the people who are lesser-know can not be
denied, but the most efficient way to learn about history is to make it as
simple and concise as possible. My conclusion is that the emphasis on the
famous few is appropriate and necessary for the study of history.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.166.238.123
ST-English 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
