I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the university entrance exam. Our schools, especially private ones, are pre-university entrance exams in disguise and ignore subjects that aren't historically present on those exams. I'm from northeast btw 

We do have some history classes for the more developed indigenous civilization (maia, astecas, melmecas, etc), but that is one that is more romantized, we almost don't get history about brazilian indigenous population because since they didn't have written history and most of their population either died of disease, killed or turned into european civilization very few of their history survived to be told.

If you think hard about our history classes from elementary school to the end of high school all the pre-written story is covered very fast and generic (talk a little about migration moves, that we originate from Africa, a little about cave paiting, the major age marks like stone age, etc) and them each of the older civilization talked had some form of written language, from what was considered the first civilization to have it at time I was in school (mesopothamian), then egypt, then greek, macedonian, rome, very few of china and mongolia (almost nothing of the rest of eastern civilizations, almost nothing of other africa civilizations)....

I got some classes about Ghana Empire, Great Zimbabwe and Mali Empire 

But yeah, it's a very shallow teaching of african History which is comical considering our ethnic background . It's more like Africa only take place in History books when african slave trade started 

Yeah what we learned in school was highly Eurocentric.

We learned about WW2, the Cold War and the Holocaust multiple times in multiple year levels and a bit about China/Japan but nothing about Africa, the Middle East, or indigenous America.

African history? Or sub-Saharan African history? I'd argue there's a difference, at least there was in the UK. Northern Africa often gets a lot of attention, especially Egypt and you'll almost certainly learn about Carthage (Tunisia these days) if you do any courses about the Romans too.

But yeah, sub-Saharan Africa was completely untouched.

Yep for brazilian history class (and would say even geography and geopolitics) is quite eurocentric. touchs a little of other cultures, but mostly comes from europe. Which is understandable since as the culture that dominated and possibly destroyed what few record was from other historical places.

It's sad that history taught in so many countries is eurocentric

Here it was only North-East Africa, Egypt and indeed Carthage, ancient times only.
Marrocco, Algeria, nothing, nothing after the Romans either.
Sub Sahara was mentioned for 80K years ago, Homo sapiens vs Neanderthals.

Also only ancient history about China, after the great walls nothing.
In contrast with Russia, which didn't come into the picture until the world wars, same as Japan.

South America, Aztecs and the Spanish getting gold from there.

It was mostly Western European centric after the Romans, or really just UK, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy.


Geography class pitched in with ancient history, movement of the continents.
Biology class pitched in with Darwin and evolution theory.
English language pitched in with Shakespeare and the times he lived in.
Math class pitched in with the origins of different math forms from China to Pythagoras.
Social studies pitched in with political movements, locally and across Europe from WWI on.
Religion class pitched in with the origins of different religions across the world.
Physics and Chemistry classes also contained plenty history about the origins of different theories.

All the 'applied history' was actually a lot more interesting than history class.

Considering a lot of people here are of European origin, I'd argue it would be sad if it wasn't. Especially for us Europeans, it definitely should be Eurocentric since it's the most relevant to us.

No I was talking about people from the new world aka The Americas plus people from Asia and Africa and Oceania. It's sad that even our history is only plagued with eurocentric views because we were colonies of some European kingdom in the past. We aren't taught about the great leaders, philosophers, poets, scientists, etc but we do learn about Newton, Plato, Shakespeare, etc. I would love to learn about history from all over the world in our schools, of course with more focus on our native lands. I learned more about some of the greats from other regions after school. There are a great many things that happened outside Europe like the arabic-indian numerals, algebra, a lot of research in all sorts of fields, great poetry and philosophy, etc.

The first man to discover how our eyes perceive light was not a European but rather a guy named Ibne-Al-Haytham. A lot of people knew about the world being a sphere before some European did. Ibne-Batuta travelled the world and was actually a great adventurer and role model unlike Columbus. There are so many great writers in Japan like Osamu Dazai and Ryonosuke, Odasaku, etc. Al-Jazari was a great inventor and his Book of knowledge of ingenious mechanical devices is something more people should know about. A lot of weird things are said about Al-Ghazali but he was a great thinker and should be taught about regardless of whether you're Muslim or not. Mansa Musa is regarded as the richest man in history so much so that when he went for Hajj, wherever he stopped, the economy of the place changed entirely. A many things were happening in Africa before the Europeans that we don't learn about like the kingdom of kush. I can go on and on but I am still learning about these people and I am sadly not knowledgeable as I should be. That's why it's sad that it's so eurocentric.