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

In the modern era , it is always handy to learn about the

history

of native as well as foreign land because both have an important role to play in the learning process.

Therefore

, I partially agree with the above notion that one should only read about local

history

.

To begin

with, studying historical

events

of native land helps an individual to gather knowledge about the

events

that had happened in the past, which would help one to attach to his roots and draw inspiration from the life

events

of great leaders , who played an important role in making the country great.

For example

, people usually travel to ancient monuments but they will only understand their importance if they know little about the

history

of the place.

Hence

, learning local

history

should always be valued.

On the other hand

, overseas

history

enables the persons to learn about different cultures and customs and that in return would add up to that person's wisdom it would

also

facilitate people who do foreign migrations and by knowing about the ancient background of a new place can avoid conflicts between people of different beliefs. To illustrate, a few nations have made it a rule that foreigners must know about historical

events

of the place they are migrating to because it would help the newcomers to settle there with ease.

Therefore

, foreign

history

is

also

helpful in many different ways. To conclude, undoubtedly historical knowledge is always beneficial for an individual, it helps in understanding the old customs and adapting to new beliefs of foreign as well as of native land.