Agree it is only natural to be more preoccupied with a perceived 'own' history. But (quite commonly I would argue) we tend to use widespread but shallow percept

Agree it is only natural to be more preoccupied with a perceived 'own' history. But (quite commonly I would argue) we tend to use widespread but shallow perceptions of such a history to push an agenda, which may or may not be justified. For example, did you know that our current concept of democracy was seen as abhorrent by the ancient Athenians? They preferred 'sortition', or representation by lottery in order to avoid the risk of corruption of elected officials [1]. Can't say that they didn't have a point, and that their warnings have all but disappeared in intellectual history also points to (if not proves) some disengagement from actual facts in favor of self-aggrandizement in the discipline that I hinted at in the parent comment. I may be a bit unfair to a whole discipline, but this was one of main takeaways from several years in university level intellectual history. I came in hoping it would be a detached and inquisitive investigation into the history of human thought in general. I was disappointed, but I learned a lot, still. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS9EMvbBq_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS9EMvbBq_U (3 minute agitation for sortition, but mentions the ancient Greeks at least)