Abstract

We criticize the conception of “history” that understands it as the set of “important”, “transcendent”, “relevant” and/or “transformative” human actions, and that, for this reason, would be the only actions that can and/or should be remembered. We problematize this conception because it generally implies Eurocentrism as it only sanctions as constituents of “history” the actions that “Western” (Eurocentric) culture considers “important”, “trans-cendent”, “transformative”, both at regional and global levels (like scientific discoveries, capitalist developments, democratizing advances, etc.). Firstly, we reflect on the problem that the ambiguity and polysemy of the word “history” implies. In a second moment, we propose the central question of this text: that the definition-conception of history as “the set of past events carried out by the human beings” is the conception that will best allow the elimination of generalized Eurocentrism. Finally, we admonish the currently predominant historiographical notion of “world history” and the texts produced under such a notion, like those of Yuval Noah Harari or Peter Frankopan, for appearing to be pluricultural when they are still Eurocentric, technocentric and colonizing.