When my daughter asked why the Romans never featured prominently in her school's history curriculum, I realized how much our teaching of history is shaped by present-day cultural priorities. We spend weeks on colonial encounters but barely touch on classical empires that shaped European law and language. Should schools aim for a globally balanced chronological survey, even if it means sacrificing depth on locally relevant topics? I'm torn because I want her to know her own heritage, yet ignoring vast regions like Asia and Africa perpetuates a narrow worldview. What's the purpose of history education—giving students a coherent story of their own society, or opening a window to the whole of human experience? I've seen curricula in Finland that weave global events into national narratives so seamlessly, but that requires a level of teacher autonomy we lack. Perhaps the real issue is whether any national curriculum can truly be neutral, or if every choice of emphasis is inherently political. Would you accept a standardized global history framework, even if it meant your country's own story got condensed into a single chapter?