There should be a massive debate about historical facts obscured for political purposes in the UK, Xenia.
What is taught as 'history' is always a political decision.
You can easily do a long survey course that covers a huge amount of the past. You can shoehorn related topics into a survey as research topics, an ideal way to fill it out and teach research and writing skills too.
My DCs all did a survey course called World History in high school. It had breadth and depth. They followed that with US History - again, a survey beginning with pre columbian history, and two of them did modern European History, another survey course. In addition to World History and US history one took a course on the history of the Modern Middle East and a course on the Vietnam War, and one did a course on the Great Migration. They did DBQs in all their courses, and research papers in US History and European history. The paper I remember most fondly involved controversy surrounding vaccination in colonial America. Last year DD4 produced a paper on beatnik culture and she is currently working on a paper on the impact on Japan of early contacts with Europeans.
The high school is currently embroiled in a discussion about its culture as some hate graffiti was found in the suburb and in the school.
The topic of the self image of the US and of the community we live in came up as DD4 and I discussed it in the wake of unrest in the high school over the last week.
Thanks to the way American history is presented in elementary schools (to age 13/14) in children's formative years, it's hard to burst the bubble of smugness most Americans feel about the US of A. History is basically taught as a Glorious March of American Progress. Likewise it's hard to burst the bubble of pride in having good intentions that exists in this (very progressive) corner of the world even though it is very obvious that the performance of black students in the high school falls behind that of all other ethnic groups and pressure groups wage continuous war on the school admin to examine institutional racism ranging from disparity in disciplinary measures to micro aggressions.
When you focus too much on the frontiers that have been conquered - how far you have come in living up to the ideals of the declaration of independence for instance, or desegregating a suburb - there is a danger of giving the impression to young minds that human nature has been improved, that all is well now that we have come to our senses, that America has a right to preach to the rest of the world about democracy and other things. There is a danger in a progressive suburb of failure to see the difference between desegregation and integration.
It is far more productive as an academic exercise to identify the forces that were massed against initiatives that campaigners fought for, and to draw a straight line between them to the present day. You could, for instance, start with the anti-Catholic animus of colonial times through the Know-nothings to the opposition to Alfred Smith's candidacy for president, to the opposition to JFK's candidacy. You could easily trace opposition to the idea of women's rights from colonial times all the way to today. And of course racism would be another obvious line, from the origins of the slave trade to lynching, to Nixon, to the 'war on drugs', to the Tea Party and on to Trump.
When you look at the opposition to various changes, you see how its ideas have endured, and it is harder to see the US as some sort of special place where the good people with the good intentions somehow always muddle through. You begin to see a case of 'plus ca change...' which is not half as satisfying as the myth is to people whose self-identity is caught up in feeling good about their country being Number One.
So my point is - history teaching is extremely important, and it is extremely important not to teach what is basically a theory of 'Why my Country is the Greatest' to primary school children.