School children should learn local history rather than world history. Do you agree or disagree?

Write at least 250 words

Response 1:

By Mr. Ali

Literally speaking, the given topic whether schoolchildren learn local history or the world history
provides food for thought even to the common rut of people. People have divergent speculatio
ns about the issue and know its tangible impact on their life. I fully agree with the idea that ch
ildren should their local history first before extending their knowledge further into this subject.

First of all, in my perspective, local history paves our roots with the homeland and heroes of th
e soil which enable young ones to get connected with their ancestors. For instance, in Pakistan,
we learn from our history that our forefathers have given many sacrifices to get the independen
t state.So, to make them realize the importance of their country, the history should be inculcate
d to the new generation, and it is better if it is included in their curriculum.

Now, in the presence of the discussion, it would be little easier to interpret the matter in a suit
able manner. This prospect of the topic is of such a significance that it basically explores differe
nt other dimensions of treatise under our critical analysis on a large scale. In the same way, acc
ording to me, it would be equally appropriate to discuss the other possible sides of the same.
World history is full of events, discoveries, wars, invasions, inventions and revolutions. However, s
tudents, at the early stage of their learning, will not be able to comprehend its significance.

In actuality, the two above mentioned points clarify the picture and pave the way for us to com
e to a conclusion. So, we can assert that it is almost unacceptable to avoid them. The unanimit
y of the critics believes that teaching of the local history at early age strengthen the ties with t
he culture and the roots of learners.
In the culmination of above lines, we may opine that, at first, we need to develop their interest
in schools regarding local history. This is how their interest will develop naturally in international
history.

Response 2

History, all history, in any form, is an inherent factor of everyone's education. We should not se
e fit to filter what children learn to our liking or biased views. As such, I disagree that the teac
hing of the said subject should be exclusively local.

"History is another country; they do things differently there", is a famous quote I'd like to refere
nce for the wonderful way it highlights the intrigue encompassed in the simple subject of histor
y. To seclude a person from the history of the rest of the world is equivalent to keeping them
cooped up in a room. After all, the knowledge gleaned from all kinds of genres of history is un
questionably beneficial- knowledge is knowledge. Learning international as well as local history w
ould increase the overall general knowledge one can possess.

On the other hand, some may argue that focussing more on the past matters of other countrie
s may contribute to the increasing distance between societies and their culture. People may be
more attracted to the idealistic countries and their history for want of modernization or westerni
zation. As such, it is an unhealthy outlook to think of one country's history as more valuable th
an the other based on social stigma. Your country, your history and your culture are beautiful, j
ust as all history is beautiful.

History should not be exclusive to either popularity or patriotism. It is, after all, the source of all
knowledge.