When the Base of National Common Curriculum (BNCC) came up as the federal proposal to determine the minimum content of education for all states, it was expected to consolidate of the educational practice carried out until then. However, in the case of History in the first version, it was the opposite, with a significant change being proposed, in which Brazilian history was centered at the expense of the centrality of teaching European history. As a result, contrary reactions have arisen in society, especially among historians and columnists of widely circulated newspapers. Critics argued, for the most part, that the BNCC was nationalist and the diminishing space in European history would result in losses of values and knowledge necessary for the desired citizenship. This version could not withstand criticism, with the second proposal returning to the traditional model. The end of the debate did not diminish the significance of the first version, which gave notoriety to a clash over the visions of history teaching and of national history itself. It is with this discussion that we begin our research, with the purpose of understanding the context and meaning of the dispute. We understand that it is possible to find an argumentative line between defenders and critics of the Base when we analyze it through the prioritization bias between an education focused on universality and another on the nation. To this end, we mobilized the debate between universalism and communitarianism as a theoretical contribution, , in addition to understanding the discussion, allows us to have three frameworks to analyze debates about curricula. These are: universalists, social cohesion and multiculturalism. While the first prioritizes the teaching of values and/or skills considered universal, the second focuses on creating common among citizens for national formation and, finally, the third favors internal relations in countries, especially the elevation of minority political groups. With this structure, it is possible to analyze the context prior to BNCC, for this we focus on the history of History teaching and on the state curricula. In such a way, it is possible that we understand both the history and the moment before the BNCC, which would be drastically modified by the proposal. As a point of comparison, we carried out the same study with US curricula, a country that we believe has a similarity in the national slave formation and differences in governmental development that allows a good counterpoint. The study of this material, like the text of the Base itself, was based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of three central issues: (a) the periodization of national history, with a focus on events considered to be forming the country; (b) the representation of ethnic-racial groups, and (c) the space for World History. With the work done, we were able to understand how the clash over the BNCC is a common process in a democratic nation where society, which has groups with different interests and views, dialogues with the State in the formation of the school curriculum. Education, which emerged with a nationalist bias, remains central to the training of new citizens, despite changes in their organization. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the possibilities of future conflicts and to understand their value in the development of a reflective society about their own formation.