It is more important for school children to learn local history than world history. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
ESSAY #53 FROM OUR BOOK
It is believed by some that studying local history is more advantageous for children than studying world history. While the knowledge of local history is important, the study of world history is as important.
On the one hand, there are profound advantages of teaching local history to the students. To begin with, this information is relevant to the students’ own surroundings. It touches children with their roots. The study of local history helps them become better voters and more effective members of any type of society. Secondly, local history fills the young minds with a sense of patriotism. For instance, it is through history alone that an Indian child comes to know of the various deeds performed by such patriots as Guru Gobind Singh, Rani Lakshmibai, Bhagat Singh, Gandhiji, etc. By reading their great lives and deeds, the child can easily be inspired to emulate them. A proper teaching of history can prepare the way for sober nationalism.
On the other hand, the study of world history cannot be undermined in today’s era of globalization. All major civilizations of the world have common roots, which point to the basic unity of mankind. The cultures of different countries have contributed in one way or the other to the total heritage of mankind. One of the important aims of history is to point to this basic unity. History is one subject that can promote international understanding in the best possible way. It can destroy prejudices existing among nations, and it can also help develop unity among nations. Global history people understand how other cultures affect their own. It also encourages them to develop a greater appreciation for multicultural influences within their own communities as well.
To sum up, it can be reiterated that the study of history is important in toto, but local history must be taught before teaching the history of the world.
