It is often argued that schoolchildren should prioritise learning local
over
. I disagree with
position to a large extent because local historical narratives are inseparable from global developments, and an understanding of
equips children with
deeperCorrect word choice
show examples
analytical skills and a more balanced worldview.
local
has educational value,
plays a more fundamental role in shaping historical understanding.
A primary reason for
view is that local
is rarely self-contained. Political independence, economic systems, and social structures at the national level are frequently the result of international events and interactions. Without knowledge of
, students risk perceiving local developments as isolated incidents rather than outcomes of broader global processes.
, the Second
War significantly altered global power structures, directly influencing decolonisation movements in Asia, including Indonesia. Learning these global dynamics allows children to understand historical causation more systematically, rather than memorising disconnected local facts.
, studying
encourages intellectual openness and cross-cultural awareness. By learning about different historical experiences, belief systems, and governance models, children develop a more nuanced understanding of humanity as a whole.
exposure helps prevent narrow or ethnocentric thinking and promotes empathy toward other societies.
, students who learn about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gain insight into the human consequences of warfare on a global scale, even without direct personal experience.
understanding is essential in preparing young people for participation in an interconnected
.
In conclusion,
local
contributes to students’ sense of identity, I strongly believe that
is more important for schoolchildren. It provides the analytical foundation needed to interpret local events meaningfully and fosters the critical and open-minded thinking required in contemporary society.