I happened upon this article from The New Yorker by floating around Twitter today. It really shook me up, though not necessarily because of what it described, but the process that I've been (inadvertently) a part of. I teach history, but I focus on European civilization more than anything else. I fold in some additional aspects of world history--a sprinkling of Africa, Meso-America, and Asia creep in, but mostly as they intersected with European movements. This is a traditional approach to history; its biggest shortcoming, I fear, is that it's assumed as being the history of the world, rather than a history of the world. That is, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with having a Eurocentric version of history, provided that it's understood that it's one of many, equally valid ways of appreciating the past. In the course of teaching history this way, I know that there are gaps and assumptions. This is the nature of teaching: Anything I teach ...
Personal musings of Steven Dowdle