Throughout history itself, there have been many debates about how to teach history effectively. Historians argue that some parts of history are forgotten and others receive too much attention because the history of cultures, races, and women gets lost in the debate over what is historical. Some, particularly Americans in this case, have little or no basic historical knowledge of excluded groups. When it comes to debating national history standards, historian Wilentz argued that we have moved away from traditional methods of teaching history and embrace it as social and economic development as well than politics. He and other historians such as Chakrabarty and Lyotard also criticize the Eurocentric nature of history. Chakrabarty argues that although “majority” history has brought “minority” histories to mainstream disciplines, the subaltern past is still largely ignored. He also argues that minority history or stories from below are fundamental elements of liberal democratic struggles for inclusion and representation (Chakrabarty 97). The texts acquired for the discipline of history are different from others because they concern above all the art of storytelling. This requires historians to be creative and imaginative in their writing and research strategies. This is difficult for historians because of their lack of knowledge about minority history. Oppressed groups such as the working class and women have long been excluded from the discourse of history, and their inclusion can enormously change the discipline of history. When teaching history in the past, these groups were left out due to little or no useful records. Chakrabarty argued that many...... middle of paper...... groups have long been overshadowed in history due to the nationalist mentality towards Europe on the part of academics and Europeans themselves- same. According to Sahlins, there are other cultures with rich histories and cultures, as presented in his work The Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities in which he glorifies Hawaiian culture. He was able to present an eccentric and diverse culture from a different perspective than Europeans. The Eurocentric grand narrative has been criticized by academics, who believe there are other ways of writing history. Lyotard and Nietzsche were two of these scholars. Lyotard criticized postmodernism, while Nietzsche's criticism concerned historiography. The history of the majority has historically eclipsed the minority, but has more recently opened the door to the recognition of the minority in the research and writing of history..