Whose History Is It? Eurocentrism in European School Curricula

Eurocentrism in education does not simply mean studying European history, but rather telling the story of the world as if Europe were its natural center, the driving force of economic and cultural development. In this educational framework, other regions of the planet often appear as a backdrop to European events or as an “other” subordinated to the Western narrative.

A comparative analysis of school curricula in countries like Italy, France, and Germany reveals similar dynamics , but with differences related to each country’s political and colonial history. In Italy, secondary school history curricula emphasize classical antiquity, the European Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the formation of nation states. In a school context where the post-war period is often ignored, it is unthinkable to delve into non-European civilizations, such as those in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. They are present, but often in separate and isolated segments, rather than part of a global narrative. All this contributes to a vision in which the European area appears naturally central to the most significant historical periods, leaving no room for non-European cultures and systems.

In France, the longstanding republican tradition has greatly favored a historical narrative focused on the construction of the state and the values ​​of the 1789 Revolution. In recent years, public debate has attempted to leverage colonial and postcolonial histories, but tensions remain between the idea of ​​a unifying national history and the need to delve deeper into diverse cultural contexts. Even projects like the shared history textbook Histoire/Geschichte between France and Germany demonstrate attempts to balance national perspectives, but the European focus remains dominant in school narratives. Germany’s situation remains tied to the weight of twentieth-century memory, particularly the experience of National Socialism and the Holocaust, which influences teaching and orients it toward critical reflection and historical responsibility. However, here too, the global dimension leaves something to be desired; other cultural contexts only come into play when linked to European history.

How to break the Eurocentric paradigm?

In contexts like these, a common element is the temporal and conceptual structure of the programs. Indeed, they take into consideration historical periods such as the European Middle Ages, the modern or contemporary age, which too often do not coincide with the historical trajectories of other countries. This periodization itself can implicitly reinforce the idea that the European experience is the universal reference. In recent years, thanks also to the pressure of international organizations and public debate, the concept of European experience has gained ground.

The idea of ​​a “global” or “connected” history, capable of transcending the Eurocentric paradigm. The idea is to integrate African, Asian, and Latin American histories not as appendages but as integral parts of the historical processes that have shaped the modern world, bringing different and complementary trajectories into dialogue.