Research: I really like the Knarrative framework. In particular, I like the focus on themes as opposed to topics. Too often, we get caught up in topics that have to be covered in history, and I like how the themes here can apply to so many different cultures. The idea of "governance" is so important here.
Reflect: It is different in that my personal curriculum relies more so on topics - covering certain countries, states, etc. The framework centers Africans by reminding us of how important their culture is. The standards in my state are often so lacking, and they are merely statements that say "students must know" as opposed to learning actual skills. My argument for more African studies engagement would be to promote greater awareness of African culture and its effect on the modern society.
Research: Review this framework of essential questions: Knarrative – Africana Studies Framework. What strikes you? What observations do you have about it? Whose perspectives does it foreground?
I love that this framework makes knowledge-production explicit. Instead of focusing on facts students should learn, it focuses on engaging students with the evidence directly by investigating questions, which not only gives them a more authentic understanding of the people, it also reveals how scholars generate knowledge. In particular, the "Movement and Memory" makes students question what sources are being used or not being used to generate scholarly knowledge.
Reflect: Compare the framework to the essential questions in your district and/or personal curriculum. In which ways are these different or the same? How does the Knarrative framework center Africans? Analyze/critique the standards in your state. If you had to advocate for better/more African studies engagement, what would your argument be? Create a rationale.
I like that this framework includes "Ways of Knowing/Systems of Thought" as well as "Science and Technology". I think in science classes, we don't always make it clear to students that science is a way of knowing, and it is not the only way of knowing. Sometimes scientists try to critique indigenous science as "not scientific", by which they mean not adhering to the modern Western understanding of what science is. This reveals that the scholar has not fully engaged with the indigenous culture's epistemology and how that differs from modern scientific epistemology (or indeed how modern scientific epistemology has changed over the centuries). The focus on "Ways of Knowing/Systems of Thought" allows students to engage with a culture's science on that culture's terms, which allows the students to gain a better understanding of science's utility and functions within that culture.
New questions open up new ways of seeing, and I especially like how these questions foreground process, agency, human relations, and defining human values.
Research: I am so struck by this framework. I love how it asks you to consider "who are we to others" AND "who are we to each other," because that is such a powerful way to help students understand nuance and how all history (and knowledge in general!) has a perspective. It is also a great way to connect with students' own lives -- they all have experiences of being seen as something to others, while knowing themselves to be something else in their families or friend groups.
Reflect: I also love centering movement and memory, cultural meaning-making, and ways of knowing. It is expected in a history class to focus largely on written sources (see, for example, Mary Prince, who I highlighted in the last module BECAUSE she is one of the few written sources we've got on that topic) to the detriment of every other way of knowing and sharing memory. I often try to use visual art, but have less knowledge and experience teaching with music and dance. I'm so excited to learn more!
I appreciate the emphasis here on asking new and different questions, highlighting the ways that what we learn and what we discuss is always framed (and necessarily limited) by the questions we ask. This insight is particularly relevant to the discipline of history, the current course I'm teaching, and has been an emphasis in my class so far (and one of the emphases I appreciate in the book The Dawn of Everything - we're asking boring questions so much of the time). I appreciated Dr. Carr's fleshing out of a few of the categories with examples, revealing the information and learning we're missing when we limit ourselves to the same old questions and frameworks.
When I look at the World History standards for NC, it is striking that African histories are primarily considered in relation to the history of other regions - primarily Europe, of course - and only considered within frameworks that have developed out of the study of European history (e.g., chronological categories such as "ancient" or "medieval," particular political categories in terms of governance, etc.). Centering African voices, experiences, and ways of knowing in conceiving "world" history would entail not only different curriculum sources and content but entirely new categories and questions.
Well done everyone! The Knarrative framework with its focus on themes and asking new and different questions that incorporate and center African people and the continent is important. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how your curriculum and current practices compare to the Knarrative framework.