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