From you argument, your stand seems to be that history is beneficial only if the truth is revealed. Is it? If that's so, please link back your stand in your topic sentence to the end of the paragraph. It seems like the argument has drifted from history being useful to something else.

1. The topic sentence is not phrased very clearly. It would have have been clearer if it was, "The study of history is helpful in helping us to learn from the mistakes of the past and thus avoiding similar situations and finding solutions for them."

Otherwise I agree with the stand and there's a clear flow of argument. (:

The study of history is not beneficial to the future of the human race due to the fact that it keeps prejudice and discrimination alive. The constant study of history has not only made a repeated emphasis on past happenings but the various ways this history is studied in different parts of the world has had different impacts on people. Take for instance the case where Protestants and Catholics in Ireland study different things regarding their history. This puts the two groups at a greater risk of getting into a tension which could escalate to conflicts. As a result, this disparity in the things they study of the past, has resulted in a negative way of viewing each other. As we can see, this study of history has implanted wrongful perceptions of one group over the other. How then can we say that the study of history will be beneficial to the human race? Chances are that this excessive and wrongful study of the past would cause people to have biased and discriminative views on other groups of people without properly assessing the truth and credibility of the information provided. Hence, this study of the past has unintentionally exerted viewpoints in our minds that do not necessarily reflect the truth in society but instead, are based on sheer prejudice.