After just taking my final for my Western Civ class in college, I realized how broad of a timeline we covered. Why does this make sense? Seems kind of weird to cover such a large area and large time span, kind of making "western civilization" just European and Asian civilization. Is there any rationality behind this?
tl;dr- the course is a product of the interwar years, one that stressed a common history between US-Europe and promoted idea of common destiny between them.
If you want the history of that class I would recommend the following article:
A second article by Allardyce lays out how in many Universities, Western Civ has transformed into World History as the standard undergraduate intro history experience- and if he updated the article he might include Global or Big History courses.
Allardyce explains the origins of the Western Civ course as such: " scholars have interpreted the course as a product conditioned by the era of the two world wars, a time when Americans envisioned themselves as partners with the European democracies in a great Atlantic civilization, formed from a common history, challenged by a common enemy, and destined to a common future." The course started declining in important during the eras of decolonization and Cold War strife. Moral questions were directed towards its purpose and its foundation as reifying Western Civ as being endowed with special qualities and more advanced- which served as justification for the expansion of Empires and the 'tutelage' of other races. There was a profound loss of faith, argues Allardyce, in the ability of the course or history to adequately explain the world (hence the post-colonial, post-modern turn). William McNeil helps save the course from irrelevance by refashioning its narrative to encompass non-European peoples and their effects on Europe/ Western Civ. McNeil's broader scope endowed new relevance to the course- though McNeil himself will ultimately move to World History and Environmental History as more relevant ways to explore and present the past.
Really the articles are great if a bit long. Allardyce really looks into the primary institutions and personalities who formulated, critiqued, and revised the standard Western Civ. course.