dear Simon and friends,
please give me your comments. thanks for any help.
I did write my essay following almost balanced opinion, it this correct?
topic: It is more important for schoolchildren to learn about local history than world history. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many people believe that teaching local history for schoolchildren is much more essential than world history. While I agree that it is vital for children to learn domestic history at school, I would argue that it is equally important for them to study both local and world history.
It is true that studying the national history is an indispensable part of school’s curriculum during children’s early education. First, having thorough insights into what happened in their countries develops their own patriotism. For example, children in Vietnam are taught about how their ancestors defended their land against outside intruders and reclaimed sovereignty. This would make those young children take pride in their origin and treasure the life they have. Also, when some students who have widen knowledge about local history go abroad, they could introduce the beauty in the cultures and traditions of their own countries to foreign people. As a result, the image of their countries would be significantly improved.
However, I believe that learning about world history shares equal importance just as local one. Firstly, 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 of various aspects of the world. Secondly, being taught about the other countries’ historical backgrounds would beneficial to young learners in their future career. Students who accumulate knowledge of this particular field at an early age would possess an attractive point to foreign enterprises, especially those who highly value company culture like Japan.
In conclusion, although learning domestic history is essential for schoolchildren, I believe local and international history have distinctively equal meanings to children.
After these two noble fruits of friendship (peace in the affections, and support of the judgment), followeth the last fruit; which is like the pomegranate, full of many kernels; I mean aid, and bearing a part, in all actions and occasions. Here the best way to represent to life the manifold use of friendship, is to cast and see how many things there are, which a man cannot do himself; and then it will appear, that it was a sparing speech of the ancients, to say, that a friend is another himself; for that a friend is far more than himself. Men have their time, and die many times, in desire of some things which they principally take to heart; the bestowing of a child, the finishing of a work, or the like. If a man have a true friend, he may rest almost secure that the care of those things will continue after him. So that a man hath, as it were, two lives in his desires. A man hath a body, and that body is confined to a place; but where friendship is, all offices of life are as it were granted to him, and his deputy. For he may exercise them by his friend. How many things are there which a man cannot, with any face or comeliness, say or do himself? A man can scarce allege his own merits with modesty, much less extol them; a man cannot sometimes brook to supplicate or beg; and a number of the like. But all these things are graceful, in a friend’s mouth, which are blushing in a man’s own. So again, a man’s person hath many proper relations, which he cannot put off. A man cannot speak to his son but as a father; to his wife but as a husband; to his enemy but upon terms: whereas a friend may speak as the case requires, and not as it sorteth with the person. But to enumerate these things were endless; I have given the rule, where a man cannot fitly play his own part; if he have not a friend, he may quit the stage.