&gt;Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in number theory.<p>There are strong cultural biases that show up in the history of mathematics. For instance the English mathematics community preferred Newton&#x27;s  notation over Leibniz due to a Anglocenteric bias in English mathematics community despite Newton&#x27;s notation being clearly inferior. As wikipedia says:<p>&gt;&quot;The priority dispute had an effect of separating English-speaking mathematicians from those in the continental Europe for many years. Only in the 1820s, due to the efforts of the Analytical Society, did Leibnizian analytical calculus become accepted in England.&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_calculus#Leibniz" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_calculus#Leibniz</a><p>This change was brought about by the Analytical Society created by Babbage and others to defeat Anglocenteric notation in favor of the better Leibnizian Newton.<p>&gt;If you think an idea is worth teaching just because it came from a certain culture, you must not care if it&#x27;s right.<p>Consider two axiomatic systems with different starting axioms. They are both internally consistent but may differ widely. How do we choose which ones to teach? Is diversity and scope important to building an objective perspective?