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

Some people argue that it is important for children to study folk history rather than world history. I disagree with this view, because I think that both of them have equally significant value to help children develop their knowledge in historic domain.

On the one hand, studying local history would help pupils know more about cultural tradition of their own countries. This will also provide an opportunity to advertise their image and resident to international friends, thereby attracting a lot of tourists to visit and explore. This also promotes development of tourism, creates more jobs for civilian, and contributes to government budgets. For instance, in international letter-writing competition for young people. Understanding national history can help Vietnamese pupils introduce to international friends about the anti-invader tradition from a thousand year ago, with many heroes and historical relics associated with it such as battle of Bach Dang river, Dien Bien Phu in the air or Cu Chi tunnels. This contributes to advertise the image of Vietnam in the eyes of international friends.

On the other hand, learning world history would help students gain deeply more about outside world, traditions and customs of different countries. This give a beneficial condition for interchange and cultural exchange with international friends; therefore, people could be closer and easier to integrate. For example, currently, many universities have cultural exchange curriculums between other nations, so understanding history, culture, and people could help student approach and adapt easily to new environment.

In conclusion, it seems to me that teaching domestic and international history together could fully equip for student all knowledge that help them in the long run.