It is more important for schoolchildren to learn about local history than world history. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Throughout the world,

history

is considered a compulsory subject in primary schools as well as high schools.

Therefore

, a group of thought holds the notion that international

history

must be ignored in a school level and schools should concentrate on local

history

. I completely disagree with

this

point of view. Undoubtedly, local

history

is more important than any other foreign country. Especially at the primary level, it should be considered essential for children to focus on their local

history

. It gives them a chance at a very young age to understand, how their ancestors worked hard to establish either progressive or progressed country.

Additionally

,

this

approach leads them to be a patriotic.

For instance

, the background of Hindustan exhibits numerous proud incidents for Pakistanis as well as Indians to be proud of their nationalities.

On the other hand

, it is too hard to ignore the importance of the international

history

. Students in their school level must be provided, the chances to know about the world.

This

opportunity may help them to compare and contrast their own

history

with other countries.

Therefore

, they may understand how and why few parts of the world are developed or undeveloped. Through

this

comparative study, they learn, what to do

exceptional

Suggestion

except

to be more successful as a nation or what must be avoided to maintain their national dignity. To encapsulate the whole discussion, I completely disagree with

this

notion that local

history

should be preferred more than international. Both are compulsory for a balanced as well as a groomed student. One makes him proud while the other provides him a chance to look wider.