What is the most significant difference in the way history is written in the US and Europe?

I'm a European. I've just done 3 years of history in college (BSc in History). The way I see it, history is slightly different from the way you guys see it (just from my anecdotal observations). I follow a few YouTube channels, and I've done some reading on American history. I follow a few chambers, including this one. I've lived in America for a brief time. I have a few observations, which I'll list below, but I'd like to open the question up to the subreddit. I'd appreciate it if you could specify if you're American or European, and where you're from. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I assume that there would be a difference between European nations, too.<br><br><br>What do you think are the biggest differences between how history is considered.<br><br><br>My observations follow. I'm from the UK, and my work was mostly on British history. <br><br><br>* I feel like Americans tend to focus more on the personalities of historical figures, whereas in Europe we pay more attention to structural issues. The average British historian would not be fussed about Washington's slave ownership, but they'd be more interested in why he owned slaves, and what the structural issues of the time were that lead to that. <br>* In Europe, we work more with primary sources. We rarely read secondary sources, and we are discouraged from using them. I was dissuaded from using even academic history books. In contrast, many American history videos on YouTube appear to use mostly secondary sources. I'd be doing all my research on primary sources if I were an American historian, and my teachers would not have permitted me to use even academic texts. I'd be very interested to hear if this is different at a higher level of study.<br>* I see a lot of American history stuff that tries to reinstate the traditional narrative that it was the Americans who liberated Europe from the Nazis. I am under the impression that Americans see the US as having been instrumental in the downfall of the Nazis. In fact, it was the Soviets who did the vast majority of the work - the Germans lost more men on the Eastern front than they did anywhere else. If it wasn't for the USSR, World War II would have lasted much, much longer, and the US would have had to take on Germany alone. The US didn't even enter the war until quite late.<br>* The Americans I've met don't have any clue who Simone de Beauvoir is. I'd consider her to be among the most important and influential Philosophers and feminists of the 20th century. The Americans I've met don't seem to know who Foucault is, either.<br>* I feel like there was quite a new stance on American Imperialism that I wasn't expecting. I feel like many Americans believe that all empires are bad except for the US. I feel like the US was just as nasty and brutal as everyone else, like the British, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Russians, etc. Why does the US get a free pass, whereas other nations are condemned? The Americans I've met seem to be quite defensive about this, too, and insist that the US is and always has been an empire of freedom. The Americans I've met also tend to be defensive about the British empire and slavery and other issues.<br>* Americans don't seem to have any clue about the legal and institutional changes that took place in Europe since the new world. I know very little about this, but Americans seem completely ignorant. I'd be happy to learn more, but my teachers told me that was all modern history and didn't cover it. <br>* Americans are obsessed with Thomas Jefferson. I thought he was kind of an asshole, quite frankly, and I don't see why he's so important. I think the Americans I've met overvalue him massively. <br><br>* Philosophers. Americans seem to have a disregard for continental philosophers. I'd say that Americans prefer analytic philosophy, whereas most of Europe (particularly France) prefers phenomenology. This is particularly true for feminists. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. <br><br>* In Europe, we work a lot more in interdisciplinary approaches. I was dissuaded from taking modules from other departments because my teachers said that they don't teach historical methods correctly. I was still expected to be able to understand the basics of other humanities and social sciences. I feel like Americans don't do that as much. <br>* Americans don't seem to be aware of how the new world was seen from a European perspective. Americans seem to be entirely unaware of how the new world affected Europe, too. I'd be happy to learn more. I did one module on exploration and colonisation, but that was from a British perspective, and they didn't really give much information on how the new world was seen in other European nations. I feel like Americans assume everyone felt the same way as the British. I'd be interested to learn more, but there doesn't seem to be any resources available. <br><br>* Americans are obsessed with the founding fathers. I see the FC and other similar channels talk about them constantly. Americans seem to insist that they have some kind of superior knowledge that the rest of us don't. Americans seem to insist that they know more about their country than the rest of us. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. <br><br>* The Cold War is seen from an entirely different perspective. In the UK, we are taught that the US and the USSR were entirely equivalent. The US and the Soviets were as bad as each other, and the UK and Western Europe had an important role in mediating between the two superpowers. Americans seem to be obsessed with the Cold War and insist on painting the US as being entirely in the right, and the USSR as being entirely in the wrong. Americans seem to have a massive lack of nuance about this issue. Americans also seem to insist that the US was the only superpower. The UK was also a superpower (albeit a much smaller one), and so were the French. Americans don't seem to be aware of this.