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

It is believed by some people that children should be taught national history instead of global history. From my point of view, I disagree with those people because both of them are equally essential for young learners. On the one hand, it is unequivocal that having thorough insights into local history is a useful tool for children to develop their patriotism. Take primary students in Vietnam as an example, who learn about how their ancestors defended their land against outside intruders and reclaimed sovereignty. As a result, those young citizens are to take pride in their origin and treasure the life they have today. Additionally, a deep knowledge of domestic history also plays a key role in preserving traditional values and identities which is being deteriorated in this globalized world. On the other hand, I reckon that learning about world history shares equal importance just as local one. Acquiring knowledge about the world’s past events equips students with a more well-rounded perspective of life. Lessons about the World War or Feminism protest against women’s abuse and discrimination would help those learners enhance their understanding about various aspects of the world. Furthermore, discovering other countries’ historical backgrounds would benefit young learners in their future career. Students accumulating knowledge of this particular field at an early age would possess a golden selling point to work for foreign enterprises, especially those who highly value company culture like Japan. In conclusion, it seems to me that the significance of domestic and international history cannot be brought into comparison to see which one is more necessary because they have distinctively equal meanings to children