Historical objects should be brought back to their country of origin.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that each country’s historical objectives were
sent to other countries for various reasons. With regards to this, some people
said they have to be brought back to their own country of origin. In this
essay, I will discuss about this situation. (여기도 이전에 말씀드린대로 수정해주시면 되고요. 단, 18일자 글들부터는 잘 되었기 때문에 저도 추가적으로 언급하지는 않겠습니다.)
The reasons why some countries’ historical heritage are
various. It can be historical reasons or it can be an unavoidable reason such
as financial problem. Therefore, I would be cautious to claim that all historical
objects should be brought back to their country. I believe that they should be
sent depending on the reasons. For example, if some country cannot afford to
manage their heritage, they have to let it go. In addition, in some cases it is hard to
define whose historical object it originally was. Nevertheless, if they can prove it is
theirs and they have a good environment for heritage, the historical heritage
should be sent.
However, I believe that a historical heritage is more meaningful,
if they were where they were made. It is because historical objects were made by
some reasons in that place. Thus, if they lose their place, the can lose their
cultural identity as well. I do think the area where historical objects are
kept also have a significant meaning. (이 문단을 보충해주시면 됩니다.)
To conclude, it is hard to say historical objects should be brought back in
place, because the reasons are various ('다른 나라에 간 이유' 라고 적어주시는 게 좋습니다.). However, I agree with this to a certain
extent. It is because the area of historical objective is part of their
meaning.
글자수: 246...ㅜ -> 이건 그래도 괜찮습니다.
시간: 49분..ㅠㅠㅠ -> 이건 안 괜찮습니다ㅠㅠ
목표 7
총평: (5/7/7/6) 6.5
이런 류의 논제가 부분동의하는데에 매우 까다롭습니다. 고로 도박을 하지 않기 위해 이런 논제는 물론, 모든 to what extent~에서 그냥 찬성이면 찬성, 반대면 반대, 하나로 몰아서 쓰세요! 18일에 올려주신 글처럼만 쓰시면 됩니다.
또한 현 논제의 경우 실제 예시를 이용하기 매우 좋습니다. 지금 저한테 떠오르는 예시는 병인양요에서 약탈된 외규장각 서재들이 있고, 그 외에도 무궁무진하니까 잘 활용해보세요~
수고하셨습니다 :)