Jump to content
Urch Forums

48 The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals


awworker

Recommended Posts

The speaker claims that we have placed too much emphasis on individuals. I strongly agree with this claim. History is not a story book full of the experience of those elite in history but a complexity of many factors. In fact, we should take much more into account if we want to have an insight into it.

Admittedly, the famous few did play a significant role in the historical events. No one can be blind to the fact that Abraham Lincoln successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis. Nor can we forget Winston Churchill’s speech that encouraged the whole Britain to fight against Hitler in the Second World War.

However, whether these individuals can make success or not and what kind of role they could play are not determinated by the individuals themselves but the trend of history itself. Actually, most of history is a study of relatively slow mass movements. The actions of groups, their values, beliefs, customs and practices dominate the course of history and guide it like a stream of water flowing in a riverbed. For example, no great man, no matter how brilliant he is, could have brought the Internet to ancient Egypt. Technology can not emerge in sudden, so do the political events.

Moreover, as the speaker assert, turns in history were often made by groups of people without fame instead of by a few significant individuals. For example, there has long been a controversy over who has made more contribution to the final success of anti-Japanese War, Mao Zedong or Chiang Kai-shek? However, we should not omit the quantities of military officers and billion of people who battled and even sacrificed in the war. Although armed poorly, the Chinese Military and Chinese people never gives up resisting the Japanese Military. Without the people’s unity and support, neither Mao nor Chiang can beat the strong Japanese Military in the World War Two.

Besides, we should also research on the economic, societal, environmental, and technological which are even more significant to historical change. We may assume that the World War would not happen if Archduke Francis Ferdinand was not assassinated. The fundamental causes of the conflict, however, were rooted deeply in the European history of the previous century, particularly in the political and economic policies that prevailed in Europe after 1871, the year that Germany emerged as a major European power. Hence, even if the Archduke was not assassinated, the great war would still happen, what might change is just the immediate cause.

In sum, the famous individuals did catalyze or lead some historical event. However, the research will be too limited to acquire the truth of the history if we just pay attention to these famous few. Only if we consider all the factors that can cause the history change, can we have a better understanding of the history and to draw an instruction for our future

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the first time I finish my Issue completely, however, I have little time before the test.

So please help me! Give me some advise! Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...