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

Teaching history has been a debated topic recently. While someone argue local history is much more important than world history, I completely disagree with this idea as will be discussed below.

It is true that a nation could not only exist independently, but also is a part of the world, so its history can not be apart from world one. Firstly, human have originated from the similar race and ages so that history is a common subject that youngsters need to clearly gather much as possible knowledges about events in the present and the past. Secondly Because of the boooming of the globalisation and international business, which created a global village leads to having a deed and thorough understanding between nations. Moreover, it will be essential for them to maitain corporating and developing the multiple cultures and international relationship.

Additionally, when learning both local and world history, students find it easy to acquire much more information and also connect many chains of events together. For example, students should acknowledge the event that Vietnam gained independence in 1945 was exactly happened after a series of relevent events in World War II. Without getting access to these events and figures of world history, students would be a bit confused about studying this subject at their schools. If students only get the information from regional history, it will be not enough to complete their acknowledgement about their nations in the many situations, especially in the past.

Inconclusion, students should learn both national and international history because this will help them understand the corporation based on the formation, achievement and the failure of human in the past and also foster their knowledge through comprehensive events.