{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03151458137347131, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010818438381937912, 'mean_word_length': 5.330357142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Generative Curricula for Devastating Times

The articles in this issue of Curriculum Inquiry deal with several devastating periods in human history about which the authors pose challenging questions to post-colonial curriculum studies, history education and social justice education. None of the authors take as given grand narratives about historical periodicity and progress, or that learning from such devastation can be neatly routed through language, symbolization or information. In fact, the articles work together to reveal how the aftermath of war, colonization and everyday social violence return to learning and learners in unpredictable and, for some, uncanny ways. In “ ‘Destiny Has Thrown the Negro and the Filipino Under the Tutelage of America’: Race and Curriculum in the Age of Empire,” Roland Sintos Coloma provides a meticulous historical analysis of how racialized curriculum formed a central role in the U.S. colonization of the Philippines in the early 1900s. His historical insights certainly “disrupt extant frames” (Asher, 2009, p. 200) about the role that race played in U.S. imperialist projects within the Philippines. Coloma documents how U.S. colonial racist discourses about African Americans led to a “comparative racialization” of Filipino/as. He then shows how the “racial grammar in popular and official representations” (p. 495) that constituted Filipino/as as racially Black, in turn led to the emergence of a liberal arts curriculum for elite and manualindustrial curriculum for the majority of the population. Nina Asher (2009) observed, in the last review issue of Curriculum Inquiry, that curriculum work in the 21-century post-colonial context entails “disrupting extant frames—in creative and generative ways—at the individual, micro and macro levels” (p. 200). Coloma adroitly weaves his analysis between all three levels. He uses a macro-level transnational framework to scrutinize how racialization shaped the U.S. colonial education policy of “benevolent assimilation,” changes in teacher training practices and the eventual predominance of manual-industrial instruction for the