Prompt: history knowledge for children QUESTION: Some people believe that it is more important to teach children the literature and history of their own country, rather than the literature and history of other countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Answer:

People have different views about the teaching of national versus international literature and history in schools. From my perspective, I believe that it is equally essential for children to learn both national and global history and literature. Ċ On the one hand, it is necessary to teach the local literature and history in schools. Having knowledge of national history, children could know more about where they live and understand the wars against invaders, which took place in their countries. From that, they would have a positive attitude towards their own homelands, develop a sense of identity and have a sense of responsibility for their nations. For example, children in Vietnam are taught the wars against France and the United States, and this can help them understand the value of independence and make them be responsible for preserving it. Ċ As well as learning the local literature and history, children should also be taught foreign novels and historical events. As a result of it, pupils can be able to comprehend the culture and people's characteristics of other countries and this can help children in the future. For instance, if high school students knew Russia's contribution to bringing an end to the second world war, they could gain an insight into Russian people's personality. Russia symbolizes generosity, bravery, and reliability. Knowing this, when being adults, children could decide on going to live in Russia or cooperating with Russian businesses as reliable and trusted partners. Ċ In conclusion, it seems to me that it is reasonable and beneficial to teach children both national and foreign history and literature.