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

Teaching history for schoolchildren has been a heated topic constant. There is a common belief that local history is more important to children than world history. However, I disagree with this belief. I believe the notion that local history is more valuable than world history should be rejected. Some people may claim that the insights into the local historical values are complete enough for one to live. Their claim could be true a few decades ago when most interpersonal communications were between people of the same race and origin. However, this view is now outdated, as the world has become globalised and international business and migrant workers have made any community a global village. In this context, an understanding of a foreign country’s history would enable future local workers to reinforce the relationship between them and the expatriates from that country. In addition, I am strongly convinced that children would benefit the most only when the learning of local history is placed parallel to that of world history. To understand a local historical event, children should put the regional and sometimes even world context of that historical era into consideration. For example, children should acknowledge that the event that Vietnam regained its independence after defeating the Japanese troops in Indochina in 1945 only happened after a series of relevant events in the World War II, one of which is the surrender of Japan to the Allies. In this way of learning, children would understand history more deeply and thoroughly. All the existing data have provided a concrete foundation that the study of local history should always be parallel to that of world history. This practice would guarantee that children learn history more comprehensively and be able to tighten the bond with migrant workers in their country.