<p>Arfeen et al. offered a timely and persuasive argument for taking imperial and colonial histories seriously in the study of medical education. Their article rightly draws attention to the ways in which past power asymmetries continue to shape accreditation standards, professional mobility, and institutional hierarchies. This commentary engages with a particular tension in their work: while the authors are careful to critique homogenising categories like “Global North–Global South,” the narrative structure of their case studies sometimes leans toward a different set of binaries, specifically the metropole-colony divide that risks reinforcing the very asymmetries they seek to deconstruct. By incorporating recent historical evidence of local agency and emphasizing collaborative authorship as a methodological necessity, this commentary seeks to further the dialogue on how historical insights can transform medical education.</p>