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

A school of thought holds that studying

history

of their own country,

instead

of that of the

world

, is more important to young student. I disagree with

this

notion for the reasons outlined below. It is understandable why some people put heavy emphasis on children learning about local

history

. The key rationale is that discovering local historical legacies are adequate, laying foundations for

further

development of their own country.

However

,

this

thinking was only valid in the past when interactions were confined to people whose the same race and ethnicity. In light of rapid globalization, only by having a good grasp of foreign countries'

history

, may young citizens find it easier to respect cultural differences, which is key to mutual understanding and cooperation among nations.

Therefore

, it is sensible that schools should incorporate

world

history

into their curriculum.

In addition

to fostering an appreciation for cultural diversity, teaching schoolchildren about events that took place in other parts of the

world

can give them a more accurate and fair outlook on what happened in their nation.

ON the other hand

, learning exclusively about national

history

could cause an individual to be biased and harbour negative feelings about people from other countries.

For example

, in Vietnam, students mostly learn about how Vietnam fought against foreign armies

such

as America or France, which causes many children to develop a distorted thinking that people from these countries are bad. In conclusion, the notion that national

history

should be prioritized is flawed, and I would argue that learning

world

history

offers far greater benefits to school children.