"Who made history"--A difficult GRE Issue topic

Issue 48: "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."

I had a deep reflection on this topic, however it is still hard to handle. I'm not sure whether I can make myself clear in the following essay. Please make comments.

Thanks in advance.

The relationship between the big shot and the groups of people in history is like that between the switch and the power supply of a machine. If either the switch is turned off or the power is removed, the machine cannot run. It is hard to say one--the switch or the power--contributed more than the other. In history books however, the glory of these prominent few dazzles our eyes, leaving us blind to the great contributions of the mass.

A deep rethink on history reveals that both the famous few and the groups of people are critical to the most significant historical events and trends. Remarkable figures, which were often characterized as bravery, intelligence or persistence, do stand out of the queue; their profound influence owned much to their ability or morality indeed. However, they were not gods or supernatural but simply a human being. How can only two hands change the direction of history? In fact, their power and strength were largely derived from the groups of people--people who believed in them, supported them and would even die for them. Thinking back to American Revolution, everyone must adore George Washington--the father of the United States. Admittedly, he is worth these praise for his great deeds, talent of leadership, more importantly, his virtues. Without him, American might suffer from the British monarchy for more years and might not be such a democratic country. But the brave American soldiers fighting for independence and the many lives that were sacrificed for refusing surrendering to the arbitrary king should not be forgotten. It was them that defeated the British army, won the war and eventually built this great nation. Consider the other famous few, like Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill; they could not change the history without the support of people. We can conclude that though the important roles the famous few played in history are indisputable, they are not likely to make a different without groups of people, whose efforts are equally respectful.

It may appear unfair for history books focusing mostly on the famous few at first; nevertheless, this is quite reasonable from a practical point of view. History (here specifically means the historical accounts we wrote) consists of stories of individuals, not of groups of people. Also, we have not learnt how to write a biography of a group, whose members names can already add up to a book. Even if there is such a book, for example, an encyclopedia filled with descriptions of Washington's soldiers' everyday life in great details, who would like to read it? People like sagas of heroes, not common life. Furthermore, the famous few are the milestones of history, they represents the trends and events. Studying them is a relatively easy and practical way for us to gain a clear idea of how history evolved. This is especially true in the history of science, whose evolvement can be presented by a list of names: Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, and Pythagoras of the ancient Greek who set the fundamental spirits of science; Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo and later Darwin who symbolized the fierce fight between science and religion; Newton, Faraday, Maxwell who established modern scientific principals and the experimental method to test a theory. History can only remember those names of the famous few, while numerous scientists who also devoted their lifetime to science remained unknown. Other scientists or people related to science like teachers, either spread knowledge or transformed theories in to practical use, changed our world. For example, it was the Wright Brothers who invented the plane, but only through thousands of engineers who better the design and much more worker who turned the design into production, planes can come to our common people's lives. But the importance to the event or to our lives, and the importance to history account or study are two different things. In a word, it is history study's nature to emphasis someone who can represent history best.

In sum, the famous few and the groups of people both made our history, yet history writers and scholars concerns more about how to make the historical account clear and attractive. So it is right for our study of history focus on the famous few, still we should not forget the contribution of the unknown mass.

Your point is a very valid one and I think that you do a good job of supporting it. I think that we, as Americans, like to have heroic figures and that we neglect the contributions of other individuals as a result. We don't always see the forest for the trees.

Personally, I don't think that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day should be a holiday. Now before you accuse me of being racist, hear me out. Martin Luther King Day is the only holiday we have in the United States that honors only one person. There is Columbus Day, but that has fallen out of favor in recent years and is in grave danger of losing its status as an observance altogether. Presidents' Day honors both Washington and Lincoln--two celebrated American heroes who had a great impact on our nation. Martin Luther King Junior was a great man and was a leader in the Civil Rights movement, but there were many other leaders, lots of people played significant roles in the Civil Rights movement. Take Thurgood Marshall as one example . . . not only was he the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, but he successfully argued Brown v. the Board of Education prior to his appointment. Marshall worked closely with the NAACP as their lead lawyer. It was because of President Lyndon Johnson's influence that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed--an agenda that was planned by the Kennedy brothers. You really cannot discount their role in the Civil Rights movement either.

And then there are the Civil Rights leaders who paved the way . . . Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and President Lincoln. And the people who fought for other kinds of Civil Rights . . . Caesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony, Margaret Sanger, Anne Hutchinson.

We should not have a Martin Luther King Day. We should have a Civil Rights Day. A holiday that is more inclusive. A holiday that celebrates all of the gains we have made. A holiday that recognizes that we still have a ways to go toward achieving equality in our nation. By recognizing only one man, we discount he contributions of others.

Man, can I get off on a tangent or what? Sorry about that.

You have some grammar issues with this essay. There are places where your verbs don't agree and other places where you have used the wrong word or left out an article.

I'll pick out the first five that jump out at me:


Remarkable figures, who were characterized by bravery. OR Remarkable figures, who were characterized as brave, intelligent or persistent . . . Figures is the word here that everything else has to agree with.


owed much to their ability


simply human beings.


the American Revolution


he is worthy of this praise OR he is worthy of these praises for . . .

Notoman
Maybe put all the emphasis on one man is a better way for better propaganda. Many people like us foreigners only know Martin Luther King and his famous speech "I have a dream" and we don't know any one of the "Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Beecher Stowe". If the media decentralize its strength, if it quite possible that even Martin Luther King is unknown to us. So owing all the credits to one man may be a way to expand the influence of an event.

Thank you for your detailed suggestions, Notoman.

True! But when you are talking about history, I feel that the ultimate goal shouldn't be propaganda. The feeling among many Americans is that Martin Luther King Day is more of an African-American holiday. If we would have celebrated a Civil Rights Day instead, it would have been more inclusive in celebrating the gains made by the other leaders in African-American rights as well women's rights and the right gained by other minority groups. But I have a way of going off on my own little tangents. I really will come back with more grammar suggestions.

Besides, I found an interesting law in Hollywood films: the hero never die, no matter he has been shot at by rifles or his car crashes. In the film "Independent Day", two men--a pilot acted by Will Smith and a computer geek--saved the entire human race from being wiped out by aliens. It seems that Americans have a religion of hero.

Content-wise your essay is thoughtful and well-argued. Your grammar definitely needs polishing, though.

Tenses should be use appropriately, for instance: "Without him, American might have suffered from the British monarchy for more years and might not be such a democratic country." Likewise: "History can only remember those names of the famous few, while numerous scientists who also devoted their lifetime to science remain unknown"

I think you have applied for gre. For gre, more than ur content its important to write well structured sentences. good luck

Actually, more and more historians, starting with Eric Foner, have been writing history "from the ground up" so to speak, focusing on everyday people rather than the heroes of traditional history books. These books have proved very popular. Everyday people are interested in what people like themselves contributed to history. If the book is well written, it can succeed.

By the way, an excellent overview of American history from this perspective is A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Private Joseph Martin kept a diary during the Revolutionary War. His detailed writings prove to be an invaluable primary resource. I have seen Private Martin quoted almost as often as I have seen George Washington quoted in my reading on the Revolutionary War. I think that it is important for history to include more than just the heroes.