It is more important for school children to learn about localhistory than world history. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.2

It is true that some commenters argue that it is more important for pupils learn about their own regional history rather than history of world. Pesonally, I disagree with this view, because I believe schools should teach both national and international history. On the one hand, teaching national history to students is the best way to maintain traditional values such as the spirit and special personalities. For example, experienced long war, Vietnameses have proved the great properties as a brave, honest and loyal soliders. By educating local history, Vietnameses students would be pound of heroic achievements and encouraged to develop themselves as repays for ancestors’s sacrifices in the past. In addtition, young generation should search in local ancedotes as a way to enrich their knowledges. When children savvy fully about local history, they may foster a sense of belonging. On the other hand, occurences of world history are factors forming contemporary society. Therefore, to discover the path that world has changed over thousands of year, student have to learn lessons from major events of world history such as world wars or crisis. Moreover, because searching widely in world history, students should be armed with comphensive knowledges about continents, religion and ethic groups across the world. In conclusion, although local history and world history are completely different, they both provide essential savvy with students. Thus, i argue that they should be taught equally.