While some individuals argue that historical education in schools should prioritize achievements of a nation to push patriotism, others contend that teaching history through a critical lens, especially focusing on mistakes and conflicts is better. In my view, while both perspectives hold merit, I lean towards former view because history is a diffucult geopolitical science, focusing on mistakes and issues beneficial for the new generation.
On the one hand, there are valid arguments supporting the idea that focusing on the achievements, greatness of the nation is essential. Proponents of this view suggest that countries historical victories, advantages can explain to the new generation how we can create modern, developedcin the close future. Furthermore, some individuals have nationalistic political views and they strongly believe that only patriotism can combine people. For example, there are handful of political organisations where persons support patriotism and promote nationalistic views. As a result, this can lead to the challenging political issues and brake development.
On the other hand, I side with those who argue that history should be taught with critical lens and historical failures. The main reason behind my conviction is that this specific method may prevent many catastrophic failures in the distant future. To illustrate, after the failure in the second world war Germany created unique economical structure and they become one of the strongest economies. Hence, it becomes evident that past historical events can be foundation to create a new modern nation.
In conclusion, although there are justifiable reasons to support the view about patriotism, I firmly believe that history should taught with critical lend due to many valuable factors.