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

There is a saying that young students should focus on the

history

of their motherland, while others argue that the global

history

will have a more positive impact on them in the background of researching past records being popular over the

last

decade. In

this

essay,

l

am going to explain why

l

partly approve of the latter point.

To begin

with, at the heart of the former matter is that these kids will acquire a sense of belonging easily from the domestic

history

which describes the origin and information of their ancestors.

For instance

, if a child is influenced by the stories of his nation gradually during the process of growth, he may tend to be a citizen who has a strong social responsibility.

However

, a negative effect of

such

an educational method

also

ought to be paid attention to the narrow nationalism, resulting in a non-ideal character of excessive arrogance or inferiority among the public.

Therefore

,

l

believe that it is necessary for students to learn something about the overall situation from the view of world

history

since

this

kind of knowledge will offer them many chances to shape their ability of independent thinking through realizing both sides

instead

of only standing in own shoes when it comes to a controversial affair.

For example

, according to a scientific survey, primary school students who are familiar with world

history

are more likely to have a good

result

Fix the agreement mistake

results

show examples

after experiencing arguments with their peers compared to those who only know the local

history

. In conclusion,

l

would argue that studying something related to international

history

will indeed bring benefit to them in a long run because of the vision of the whole situation.