I think that there is a complex answer, or several complex answers, to this question. Initially, I would say that all study of history is relevant and meaningful. I fully admit that I am biased as a History teacher. I find that all studies of history as being relevant as they tell or reveal aspects of national heritage or narratives that help to explain the past and how it fits into a sense of a nation's identity. I don't think that there is anything wrong in saying that someone from a country should be fluent or proficient in that nation's history. It is important to study one's own history in order to understand national identity, sacrifices that have been made, and yes, mistakes that have been committed in one's own history.
Having said this, I think that one has to be very careful in placing one history over another. I think that the idea that President Obama said a while back is relevant regarding exceptionalism when he said that each nation believes in their own "exceptionalism." I think that studying as many histories as possible lends credibility to people becoming global citizens and understanding more about different cultures. I think that it is important to validate these voices and not silence others. Recently, in India, a member of a national political party stirred controversy when he commented that certain "Indian" texts should be taught over other texts and implied that there is an "Indian" identity and should be valued over others. In a globalized world, ideas and notions are exchanged so freely that it is important to value as many heritages as possible, draw out commonalities, and even point out where mistakes and errors have been made. It is in this light where I think that it is important to study your own history as well as that of others in the modern setting.