History is regarded as one of the oldest subjects that humanity has been learning. In recent times, the community of history learners have two different views about the importance of local and world history, with the first group giving more credits to local history , while their opponents arguing that studying world history is more important. Personally, I believe that a balanced method in this process can be more beneficial than option for either one.
On the one hand, incorporating world history as a subject at educational institutions could maintain a chance for students to learn from the past. In simpler terms, youngsters can gain new insights about mistakes and achievements in the history of world countries, which may come in handy while making critical decisions in future. One clear example of global happening that almost everyone should know is World Wars and their side effects to the world, ranging from the genocide of nations to the horrifying introduction of nuclear weapons. The new generation should be aware of suchlike happenings, ensuring that they can avoid any possible conflicts.
On the other hand, the proponents of local history argue that it is possible to install sense of patriotism in students if they have more local history classes. It is linked to self-awareness - having deep knowledge about past ancestors, the development of one’s own nation and language. This familiarity has more likelihood to inspire the youth to preserve nation and rely on traditional norms on the way of improving themselves to perfection.
As for my own position, I am inclined to say that balanced-understanding of both global and local history can bring forth more advantages. This is because, the recognition of identity and how the current world has evolved may create a better environment to make well-informed decisions as an inhabitant of a country and the world.
In conclusion, despite independent importance offered by either studying local or world history, I still agree with using a combined approach in this procedure.
On the one hand, incorporating world history as a subject at educational institutions could maintain a chance for students to learn from the past. In simpler terms, youngsters can gain new insights about mistakes and achievements in the history of world countries, which may come in handy while making critical decisions in future. One clear example of global happening that almost everyone should know is World Wars and their side effects to the world, ranging from the genocide of nations to the horrifying introduction of nuclear weapons. The new generation should be aware of suchlike happenings, ensuring that they can avoid any possible conflicts.
On the other hand, the proponents of local history argue that it is possible to install sense of patriotism in students if they have more local history classes. It is linked to self-awareness - having deep knowledge about past ancestors, the development of one’s own nation and language. This familiarity has more likelihood to inspire the youth to preserve nation and rely on traditional norms on the way of improving themselves to perfection.
As for my own position, I am inclined to say that balanced-understanding of both global and local history can bring forth more advantages. This is because, the recognition of identity and how the current world has evolved may create a better environment to make well-informed decisions as an inhabitant of a country and the world.
In conclusion, despite independent importance offered by either studying local or world history, I still agree with using a combined approach in this procedure.