Introduction

The violence of the Atlantic trade and the slavery system had left deep marks on the Brazilian society’s way of organizing. These marks are like open and non-sutured fractures, and they do not cease to question the present time and to highlight the imposture of the myth of racial democracy. For a long time, this myth served to deny the reality of racial relations in Brazil through the image of a harmonic and cordial nation that was intended to forge.

Nowadays, this myth still reverberates on the imaginary of Brazilian racial relations, despite the repeated denunciation of the black movement, it follows producing concrete effects yet. The myth is materialized in the “fable of the three races” (^{FREYRE, 1998}; ^{ROMERO, 2001}) and it is strong and able to hinder the real dimension of the deleterious effects of racism in Brazil anchored in a perspective that maintains unquestioned racial asymmetries and celebrates miscegenation as a unique and successful trait of national formation. Regarding this process, Abdias do ^{Nascimento (1980}) already warned since the 1970s for the way how it guises, further the genocide strategies of race whitening, socio-economical discrepancies unsolved in the post-abolition, privileging the positive focus when dealing with racial relationship in the country .

The production of the myth of multi-ethnic nationality has muffled the dissident voices. As Kabengele Munanga highlights, the ideology of racial democracy served as an interpretation model for its constitutive pluralism, guising conflicting relationships intrinsic to the Brazilian social and economic formation.

The myth of racial democracy, based on the double biological and cultural miscegenation among the three original races, has a very deep penetration in the Brazilian society: it exalts the idea of harmonious coexistence between individuals from all social strata and ethnic groups, what allows the dominant elites concealing inequalities and preventing members of non-white communities from becoming aware of subtle mechanisms of exclusion of which they are victims in society. In other words, it masks racial conflicts, making possible for everyone to recognize themselves as Brazilians and removing subaltern communities from becoming aware of their cultural characteristics that would have contributed to the construction and expression of their own identity. These characteristics are ‘expropriated’, ‘dominated’, and ‘converted’ into national symbols by the ruling elites (^{MUNANGA, 2004}, p. 89).

Whether the ideology of racial democracy started to be more bluntly contested in the 1950s, based on critical analysis of socioeconomic disparities between white and non-white population, countless reflections fell, however, on the privileged emphasis given to class inequality at the expense of racial difference. For an intellectual like Florestan Fernandes, it should be analyzed in another light insofar as the end of the slavery regime did not break with racial heteronomy. Thus, Fernandes (1972, p. 97) detached that the dependent capitalism was able to assimilate the racial heteronomy and incorporate it to the political and socioeconomic heteronomy, maintaining “the racial concentration of income, social prestige, and the power more representative of a ‘caste society’ than a ‘class society’”.

Nowadays, for the reconceptualization of racial relations in Brazil, there is the need to adopt an analytical lens capable of questioning the system of oppression in its complexity. In other words, by an intersectionalized approach (^{DAVIS, 1981}) able to articulate the variables of race, class, and gender/sexualities to understand the domination dynamics through an integrated approach. Therefore, the intersectional perspective

[...] refutes the confinement and hierarchy of the social differentiation main axes which are sex/gender, class, race, ethnicity, age. Disability and sexual orientation categories. Intersectional approach goes beyond simply recognizing the multiplicity of oppression systems that operate from these categories and postulates their interaction in the social inequalities production and reproduction (^{BILGE, 2009}, p. 70).

These inequalities in production and reproduction are imbricated and point to the persistence of violent practices to the detriment of black populations, because color skin and social class are not dissociated in the country, reporting greater vulnerability and victimization to racially/sexually stigmatized groups. It requires to resize analysis to think how “whiteness and blackness, masculinity and femininity, work and class categories came into existence historically from the beginning” (^{MCCLINTOCK, 2010}, p. 39), to perform a reading considering articulations among the different oppression axes and their normative meanings as episteme and praxis intrinsic to modernity/coloniality.

Sueli Carneiro detaches that “regarding the feminine gender, the emphasis on control technologies over reproduction is highlighted and they are presented differently according to the race; regarding the male gender, the simple violence is evidenced” (^{CARNEIRO, 2005}, p. 72). Therefore, a State project is outlined that prefigures more ostensible and hostile access to these bodies, whose consequence is the registration of the “blackness in the sign of death in Brazil” (CARNEIRO, 2005, p. 94).

Historically, these practices have supported institutional racism and anti-black genocide as state necro-politics in the country (^{MBEMBE, 2018}b). Paying attention to the political, economic, social, and epistemological implications of these dynamics is fundamental for understanding power relations in this context, given that social relations do not pass untouched by the processes of racialization and racially/sexually produced inequalities in countries marked by colonial violence and structural racism.

Thereby, in a racialized society, it is essential to discuss strategies that allow the repositioning of views and representations to combat binary and Eurocentric logic domination systems, structured from asymmetries of race, gender and work historically produced. But not least, these strategies must produce displacements in the epistemic domain because it is necessary to forge means and actions that face the modern/colonial world-system and its civilizing values.

On this account, despite the end of colonial rule after the political independence of territories once dominated by European metropolises, effects arising from colonialism in the ontological and epistemic domains are lasting. For Aníbal ^{Quijano (2005}), coloniality is one of the constituent elements of the world standard of capitalist power, based on domination racist relations that guarantee not only the supremacy of white bodies regarding other racially marked subjects but also define the production systems and diffusion of legitimate, valid and socially valued knowledge.

On one hand, if the race is the determining axis of social classifications and hierarchies, the racism, on the other, it is the main social mechanism in maintaining the colonial and geopolitical difference of knowledge (^{MIGNOLO, 2003}, 2005). That is the reason why we can understand the statement by Achille ^{Mbembe (2018}, p. 70) when he observes that “the racial scene is a space for systematic stigmatization”, insofar as the fabrication of the racial difference that justifies the dehumanization processes, and the unequal relationship is the cornerstone of the hegemonic domination project.

Margins

Alienation imposed on expressive human contingents, whose bodies were converted into merchandise, is one of the most violent gestures of colonial terror, based on dualistic and evolutionary conceptions in history. In this perspective, ^{Mignolo (2003}) highlights that colonizers did not cease to rank the intelligence and the “civility degree” of the dominated peoples, taking the absence of alphabetical writing, commerce, and the State as a criterion. Then, history itself begins to serve as a classifying sieve, separating the peoples that would be “a-historical” from the civilized peoples, with the fixation of those in a prehistoric, primitive time. Wherefore,

[...] From epistemological perspective, European knowledge and local histories were seen as global projects, from the dream of an Orbis universalis christianus to Hegel’s belief in a universal history narrated from a perspective that places Europe as a reference and arrival point (^{MIGNOLO, 2003}, p. 41).

Expansion of European forms of knowledge consolidates the epistemic hegemony imposed by the West and projects in a global dimension of concepts, images, and representations produced within European culture to classify non-European peoples. Coloniality of knowledge confers epistemic premises for cultural subordination and builds the structures of racism/sexism through material and symbolic dispossession, as well as of blockade to humanization full of subordinate people. In its turn, this racial designation is constituted as “the process through which certain forms of infralife are produced and institutionalized, indifference and abandonment justified, the part that is human in the other violated or occulted through forms of internment, even murder, that have been made acceptable” (^{MBEMBE, 2018}, p. 70). This is because the denial of human status to colonial subjects legitimizes the dominated existence, the non-recognition of racialized subjects and genocides, at all scales, based on systemic violence addressed to non-white bodies.

The fact is that the processes of racialization aimed, through a “substantialization” movement of the differences between the “colonized” and the “colonizer”, at establishing a system of privileges and losses based on the “natural” distinction between races, inscribed in the very “Human nature” and materialized in the phenotypic expressions characteristic of each one of them. When forging subjectivities modulated according to the positions they occupy in a binary system, created by the pattern of white supremacy, marked as superior in opposition to non-white bodies, the logic of racial subjection is instituted. Frantz ^{Fanon (2008}, p. 28) would name this process as “epidermalization of this inferiority”, whose visible skin color semiotics “must become hatred” (^{FANON, 2008}, p. 61). Thereby,

One of the fundamental axes of this power pattern is a social classification of the world population according to the idea of ​​race, a mental construction that expresses the basic experience of colonial domination and since then it permeates the more important dimensions of world power, including its specific rationality, eurocentrism (^{QUIJANO, 2005}, p. 117).

Regulated by the asymmetries of racial relations, Western monological-universal discourse is reaffirmed by the destitution of other forms of life, thinking, knowledge, and experiences, through a “persistent process of producing cultural indigence” (^{FANON, 2008}, p. 97). Hence, the knowledge produced by non-white bodies is invalidated before the hegemonic matrix of knowledge disseminated as superior, which is naturalized, and converted into an instrument of ontological negation. After all, the mode of socially and culturally valued knowledge will be that linked to the expansive power of the dominant colonial order, and “outside its borders is non-being, nothingness, the barbarian, the meaningless” (^{DUSSEL, 1986}, p. 11). No wonder that ^{Quijano (2005}, p. 122) highlights “the fact that Western Europeans imagined it was the culmination of a civilizing trajectory from a state of nature also lead them to think themselves as the moderns of humanity and its history, in other words, as the new and at the same time the most advanced of the species”.

When repeating the western epistemic pattern as a referential model of knowledge, it made possible the subordinate tutelage of subjects and knowledge that escaped the dichotomous logic of European thought, the model of the political organization of modern nation-states, and the capitalist economic system based on private ownership of the means of production. Epistemicide (^{SANTOS; MENESES, 2010}; ^{CARNEIRO, 2005}) when denying the ability of non-European peoples to produce knowledge, historically it had the function of destroying local ways of knowing at the expense of the imposition of single legitimate rationality, linked to the process of modernity/coloniality eurocentrization. Without considering epistemic racism is not possible to understand the multiple effects of epistemicide in disqualification of knowledge, in the ways of organizing life, and in the ontological destitution of disregarded humanities.

This is where the tactical functionality of the dominant logic, supposedly “impartial”, “disinterested” and “objective”, erases from its history the violent institution of an epistemic classification that favors Eurocentric knowledge production regimes. Treated as pre-modern and backward, according to dichotomous and evolutionary narratives, racialized populations are objectified by epistemic violence, which offers support for ontological denial of extra-western populations. Denying the rationality and denying of being are intrinsic in these processes of silence and death-in-life (^{MBEMBE, 2018}b).

As a living figure of dissimilarity, awe, and deprivation, “western black consciousness” will be the locus of its eccentric origin, of its pedagogical imprisonment, and the continuous self of resistance to the sharing of a common world.

Outcasts from the zone of being (^{FANON, 2008}), colonized ones are abandoned to indigence of spirit and laws. ^{Derrida (1991}) also noticed it in Margins of Philosophy, when highlighted that the “white mythology” imposes the figure of the white, European, heteropatriarchal, and Christian man as representative of universal standards of humanity. White solipsism (^{OYĚWÙMÍ, 2000}) culminates for even erasing whiteness as raciality, giving it the place of paradigm, in other words, the place of the marker is not determined by any markings, and therefore, a reference parameter from which the hierarchy of humanities is organized .

That is the importance of historicizing the knowledge construction process which has engendered the naturalized – and racialized – structures of certain epistemological paradigms assimilated as universal patterns. When displacing privilege centers, discussing the counter-hegemonic processes of affirmation of subordinated cultures and the resignifications proposed by them is necessary, also carry out a critical exercise “on the systems of positions and geopolitical places of philosophical production, what means the problematization of the invisibility of the historical and political place in the construction of knowledge and the assumption of the neutrality of a ‘universal subject’” (^{NOGUERA, 2014}, p. 22).

Epistemic racism is implicated in the paradigms of colonial domination in the form of epistemicide and operates by way of logic according to which the only regime of truth would be provided by the tradition of Western, scientific thought, whose worldview should be disseminated as a superior form of knowledge at the expense of other cosmologies and knowledge. As it is known, the result is a series of natural justifications based on essentialist stereotypes for racial, ontological, and epistemological downgrading of peoples subjected to the arbitrary violence of the occupations and the dominant “civilizing” impulse of the colonial movements inflated by the “racial, binary, and essentialist hierarchies of hegemonic Eurocentric fundamentalism” (^{GROSFOGUEL, 2011}, p. 346).

When questioning the coloniality of knowledge and the monoepistemic paradigm as forms of domination, decolonial lenses adjust the focus to the diversity of epistemic matrices further than the dichotomizing landmarks of hegemonic thinking. These lenses do not reinforce the ontological rupture that despises the body, a territory in which the multiple narratives of resistance and (re) existence forged in the anti-racist, anti-sexist, and decolonial struggle are inscribed and produced. On the other hand, questioning the dualism on which the Eurocentric perspective is supported, with the dissociation between body and reason, subject and object, nature, and society, underlines the reductionist one-sidedness of this view and of normative explanatory categories, naturalized as whether they were universal and static.

However, these categories are still being put to the test. Before the “acculturating” and civilizing pressure of European models that produce subjectivities, aesthetic standards, moralities, and sensibilities, local, geopolitically situated knowledge is affirmed against the epistemological legacies of Eurocentrism and against social, racial, and epistemic injustices that are intrinsic to them. Nelson Maldonado-Torres (2007, 2018) call it a decolonial spin, as an affirmation movement of enunciation locus that destabilizes the supposed universality of Western thought.

The political-epistemic challenge of this movement requires that epistemological diversity, singular experiences, and the geopolitical awareness of knowledge produced from a specific place and time be assumed. To this, the practice of intercultural education as a form of “radical transformation of existing structures, institutions, and relationships” in the political-pedagogical sphere is added (^{WALSH, 2009}, p. 22). Understanding this movement, at the same time ethical, political, aesthetic, ontological, and epistemological only is possible from this exercise of dissuading knowledge and breaking with coloniality.

Therefore, decoloniality and interculturality both point to the criticism of the cognitive privilege attributed to a particular, but universalized point of view, and to the insurgency of a practice that opposes the monoepistemic, monorational, and monocultural paradigms of modernity/coloniality, which are grounded on the compartmentalization of knowledge and the racist/sexist pact that organizes scientific knowledge and academic curricula based on modern-Eurocentric rationality.

If the way of production and diffusion of legitimate knowledge is a central element in the maintenance of colonial domination structures, it is possible to perceive, however, in these practices, knowledge and practices, the emergence of records, voices, poetics, and regimes of historicity based on other cultural matrices. It is not uncommon for them to come from the collective creations of resistant communities and their memories transmitted orally, based on other ethical-political and ancestral values.

Inventive marks of diasporic and the indigenous peoples’ identities reverberate in practices, in symbolic systems, and in the plurality of discourses that resist to the monology and monolingualism of the modern/colonial project, which organizes differences and inequalities among the peoples. Memories and traditions in permanent movement and networks of knowledge woven according to temporalities, technologies, and other textualities reflect the mosaic of cultural representations and meanings in circulation in the diasporic world. In this world, the body is not only the object of which we speak, but the locus of enunciation from the knowledge and discourses are produced, experienced, and shared. If persistent effects of coloniality annihilate bodily powers and reduce the body to a mere appendage of the mind, then decolonial actions claim precisely the affirmation of identity, inseparable from corporeality and the experience lived in response to the coloniality of being, power, and knowledge.

Walter ^{Mignolo (2008}) calls it as epistemic disobedience. It is widely practiced as strategic resistance in emancipatory and aesthetic-bodily knowledge of aphrodiasporic and Amerindian populations, and it puts in check the binary, racist, and sexist logic that shapes the geography of western-centric reason. Like decolonial epistemologies settled, other subjectivities, repertoires, and narratives might be recognized and assumed as a strategy for ontological, political, and epistemological affirmation from the enunciation place of the lived experience of subaltern peoples. When this power is triggered, the objective is to subvert the monocultural order through open, pluriverse, and border crossroads of knowledge. This is what decolonial educational practices and intercultural education propose as another civilizing and epistemic pact from the South.

Teaching philosophy from the Southern

Revisiting the critical traditions of counter-hegemonic thinking and defending the decolonial option (^{MIGNOLO, 2008}) enables the proposal for a philosophy teaching not only for the South but from the South, fundamental to understand a world marked by the permanence of coloniality in the various spheres of individual and collective life. The challenge to be faced in the field of teaching philosophy and education for ethnic-racial relations requires problematizing the univocal, monophonic, and universalist modes of enunciation, which materialize in the imposing force of the modern/colonial canon manifested in the academic curricula and the current scientific production.

Decolonial attitude consists of affirming historically marginalized subjects as epistemically qualified and concretely located creators. Therefore, intercultural pedagogical practices mobilized by this attitude sustain, in contrast to disincorporated and universal knowledge, the place of enunciation situated and geopolitically constructed as a rupture of the modern/colonial canon. This Project implies, according to Catherine ^{Walsh (2012}, p. 69), “transgressing, interrupt and dismantle the colonial matrix still present and creates other conditions of power, knowledge, being, and living that distance themselves from capitalism and its unique reason”.

Regarding teaching philosophy, it is about asking how the paradigms of the coloniality of being, power, and knowledge have been maintained, anchored in the circulation of the Eurocentric model that privileges western epistemologies – white and male – and does not recognize the intellectual productions of the geographical and epistemological South. On the other hand, how to develop a decolonial teaching practice that does not disregard the relevance of these issues in the socio-historical context of countries marked by colonization, slavery, and epistemic dependence? Criticizing the disciplinary structure, organization, and practices of the field demands problematize, then:

[...] the effects of extermination through coloniality, without reducing them to the process of legitimizing the power to promote death. These effects encompass genocide in its epistemological, representative, aesthetic, material, and symbolic dimensions, realizing how the racial device justifies death and is strengthened by the multiplication of mechanisms of production of death in life for those who embody the zone of not being (^{PIRES, 2018}, p. 10-11).

One of the tracks to follow when elaborating pedagogical strategies against epistemological colonialism is considering a circuit of production and transmission of knowledge not restricted to formal educational institutions, insofar as the inferior groups were historically excluded from these institutions. The Brazilian Black Movement detaches this, for example, when resizing knowledge, practices, and knowledge, guided by resistance struggles against epistemicide, epistemic racism, and negative discrimination. According to ^{Arroyo (2003}, p. 42-43), “they [social movements] re-educate individuals, groups and society. They also show the urgency of the reunion of pedagogy with these ethical dimensions that are so determinant in the possibilities of formation and humanization, including the popular childhood that we conduct as educators”.

On the other hand, when detaching the need for the decolonization of school curricula and institutional representations, The Black Movement proposes not only forge effective tools to fight structural – and structuring – racism/sexism of the Brazilian society, also reposition the narratives, aesthetics, political-identity knowledge and interpretations about the trajectory of black people in Brazil. This is the importance of changes in representations related to black and Amerindian cultures in educational practices and the inclusion of African, indigenous and Afro-Brazilian knowledge in school curricula, which requires questioning places of power and asking on “the relationship between rights and privileges rooted in our political and educational culture, in our schools and at the university itself” (^{GOMES, 2012}, p. 99).

Elaborating a decolonial grammar, forged in the struggles of resistance to coloniality is crucial to tension the place and the role of Western pedagogical practices and epistemologies, which sustain institutions and relations. This is fundamental to promote a rearrangement in the context of teaching philosophy and its narcissistic pacts (^{BENTO, 2002}), towards diversified repertoires, cosmopolitical, identity, and aesthetic-corporeal knowledge, which conform to other modes of intelligibility. This meeting of polyphonic utterances dislocates the axes of an alleged Eurocentric universality, which can only be instituted in the erasure of other forms of production, knowledge, and identities.

In this context, understanding the importance of Laws 10.639/03 and 11.645/08, which amend the Law on Guidelines and Bases for National Education (LDB) is necessary, because they make the teaching of African, Afro-Brazilian and Amerindian history and culture mandatory in basic education. Despite the difficulties regarding their effective implementation throughout the national territory, more than a decade after their enactment, the political-pedagogical relevance of the laws is given as a means of confronting epistemic racism, the multifaceted forms of epistemicide, and the coloniality permanent structures. The symbolic erasure of identity references, ways of being/living, and black African and Amerindian narratives imply a prolongation in the marginalization of the forms of knowledge, subjects, and practices of these peoples, as well as Brazilian historical memory.

Regarding the philosophy teaching, the challenge is huge, because the advances to be considered in compliance with the laws are still extremely limited and punctual. Disregard the philosophical thought of the black African, Amerindian, and women peoples in the canon of the history of philosophy are founded on epistemic racism/sexism opposes the universality of male thought of western “civilized peoples” to the epistemological illegitimacy of non-Western and non-male. Therefore, education undergraduate curricula, similarly to what is represented in high school textbooks, tend to reproduce the canon of European philosophy and deny the philosophical value of Afro-Latin American or female-produced knowledge. Dichotomous, marginalizing, and the hierarchical reason is thus based on binary and stereotyped oppositions, through which, in addition to the dominant pole, there is only ignorance, savagery, and barbarism.

Philosophy faculties, with their courses almost entirely guided by Eurocentric formative itineraries, reflect a way of facing philosophical practice according to which everything that departs from the circuit of the Greek-European tradition is delegitimized by hegemonic knowledge schemes. When privileging an identity group, it enables accessing and spreading “a truth” to be universalized, epistemic racism ratifies the downgrading of non-Western knowledge matrices, as if in addition to “modern civilization” and the western monopoly, there was no production of valid knowledge, not even humanity to be considered. this is because “epistemic racism neglects the epistemic capacity of certain groups of people. It can be based on metaphysics or ontology, but the result turns out to be the same: avoiding recognizing others as fully human beings” (^{MALDONADO-TORRES, 2008}, p. 79).

No wonder that debates on the “end” or the “crisis” of the philosophy do not consider non-Western philosophical thinking, as if the Western matrix of philosophy represents the universal synthesis of philosophical reflection, invisible to its local condition. Ergo, regarding the philosophy teaching, understanding the geopolitics of (re) production of philosophical knowledge is essential, especially when, in the concealed fusion between space and race, the aim is at naturalizing the politically and epistemically constructed order that founds modernity/coloniality.

It is also important to emphasize that a decolonial proposal for the teaching of philosophy does not consist only of inflating curricula with programmatic contents of Latin American or Afro-Brazilian thought. As highlighted by ^{Noguera e Nascimento (2013}, p. 79), “it is a de-marginalizing philosophical productions exercise”. Relevant practice disseminated by this exercise is due to the opposition to the harmful and lasting effects of racist/sexist coloniality, when recognizing and valuing the knowledge produced and systematized by subordinated subjects as epistemologically significant and relevant. Moreover, reversing the situation of erasing the presence of African descent, indigenous peoples, and women in philosophical productions requires repositioning the knowledge, practices, and repertoires produced by these subjects as valid and legitimate forms of knowledge.

Philosophy teaching guided by a decolonial, anti-sexist, and anti-racist perspective supposes the permanent exercise of decolonization of thought, practices, and curricula with a view not only to the diffusion of extra-western perspectives but also effectively to a critical position against the racist/sexist logic of coloniality. Thereupon, philosophy teaching in a decolonial perspective implies permanent work

[...] aimed at breaking the chains that are still in the minds, as the Afro-Colombian intellectual Manuel Zapata Olivella used to say; enslave minds, as Malcolm X used to say; and unlearning the learned to return learning, as Juan García, grandfather of the Afro-Ecuadorian movement argues. A work that seeks to challenge and overthrow the social, political and epistemic structures of coloniality – hitherto permanent structures – which maintain power patterns rooted in racialization, without Eurocentric knowledge and in the downgrading of some beings as less human (^{WALSH, 2009}, p. 24).

Paying attention to this means affirming that “there are several cultural universes, there is no single system organized in center and peripheries, but a set of polycentric systems in which center and peripheries are contextual, relative and politically constructed” (^{NOGUERA, 2014}, p. 34). It is the radical questioning of the colonization pillars and the alleged neutrality of Western philosophical discourse, tracking the perpetuating elements of colonial logic that sometimes support philosophical systems explicitly built from normative racial/sexual categories to justify the real games and domination of hegemonic order.

The exercise of decolonization of thought and philosophy teaching practices similarly requires elaborating a decolonial grammar of analysis to face the racism/sexism obstacles, which prolong the deleterious effects of epistemic colonization. This is because the epistemic, racial, and sexual hierarchies, which underlie the coloniality of power relations, (re) produce essentialist stereotypes and discriminatory models that culminate in the dehumanization of subjects and the maintenance of colonial differences.

The epistemic alternative that emerges with decolonial thinking is not dissociated from the concrete practices and struggles of body-politically situated subjects. The crossroads opened by that thought point to alternative routes to modern/colonial/patriarchal rationality. Wherefore, the debate on philosophy teaching does not dispense the epistemological, racial, sexual, and political debate. Quite the opposite. The persistence of the epistemic domination of a colonial matrix exposes intrinsic relations between knowledge and power, especially regarding the periphery of the colonized world and its exclusion from the canon of the history of philosophy. Thereupon, interrogating the Western narrative of modernity and the process of subordination of the peoples from the Global South as a constitutive part of this historical experience is fundamental for proposing teaching on a decolonial basis, implicated the anti-racist/anti-sexist/anti-class struggle.

Finally, mentioning the importance of the role played by the university in this project is worth it. As a dynamic institution, open to the flow of knowledge, research, and experience, the university, especially the public one, it has the duty has to problematize the theoretical bodies that legitimize, disseminate, and (re) produce, so as not to reinforce schemes of knowledge that naturalize the canons of faculty subjects. Against the monocultural “order of discourse” that denies other epistemological paradigms and modes of existence, a permanent questioning of geopolitics of knowledge has the function of not perpetuating the belief that “all populations living outside the small space known as ‘Western Europe’ are carriers of a type of inferior knowledge, of an inferior interpretation of the world, of an inferior spirituality, notably marked by folklore and superstition, and not by ‘truth’ ” (^{FLOR DO NASCIMENTO, 2013}, p. 4).

Conclusions

A critical review of concepts hegemonically forged by the modern/colonial tradition implies the redefinition of epistemological paradigms with clear consequences in history, historiography, and philosophy teaching. It is not possible to disregard that conditions of subordination and imposed epistemic dependence still reverberate in all formative cycles of Brazilian educational networks, despite the emergence of critical perspectives on Eurocentrism, racism, elitism, and sexism in the most insurgent propositions.

Before the hegemonic curriculum structure, decolonizing potential of the Law 10.639/03 reflects on important reorientations, essential for the promotion of educational practices that recognize and face coloniality and clear obstacles to their effectiveness. It is worth mentioning that this practice is indispensable for the emergence of other paradigms so that effective changes are brought about in the social structures and representations of racialized and gendered subjects, towards combating all forms of discrimination.

Consequently, a decolonial perspective contributes to reconfiguring the paths of teacher training and philosophy teaching, especially regarding how the temporality and organization of the history of philosophy are conceived, legacies of the colonial Eurocentric matrix. If every subject and all knowledge are marked by specific historical, cultural, and social locations, one of the central issues of teaching philosophy on a decolonial basis should be to rethink teaching practice-oriented not only by working with content that deals with this theme, also for the critical positioning amid the dispute of representations, narratives, and meanings given to philosophy, its problems, and its history.

Furthermore, racializing the debate on philosophy teaching and curriculum implies a task, simultaneously ethical-political and onto-epistemological, which requires reconsider the knowledge, subjects, and experiences violently banned from the canon and official philosophical narratives. Therefore, what at stake are not exclusively the ways to represent the past, but a deep questioning of the historical present at a time when the field of philosophy is redefined and tensioned by political disputes and by inquiring of its gaps, absences, and silences. On one hand, it is because strangeness is fundamental for a reflective exercise based on the critical distance needed when philosophizing belonging and representativeness, and on the other hand, a set of important references is given to this exercise, and this is fundamental for the epistemic localization, for recognition of the agency of historically marginalized subjects and reorientation of the writing of history from another perspective (^{ASANTE, 2009}).

These counter-hegemonic rationalities, committed to reversing the racialization of privilege structures and their material, symbolic and epistemic effects open paths for democratic expansion of the university as a public space for the collective construction of decolonial experiences, and for teaching practices engaged with undoing domination hierarchies and the discussion of Brazilian colonial inheritances. From the values shared by epistemic diversity tensioning the western reason, geography is a possible point to the need to overcome the civilizing logic of modernity and dehumanization processes based on race and the sex/gender system.

Combining concrete political struggles with the decolonization of knowledge and curricula is fundamental to face the challenges imposed on the emancipation of subordinate groups and to create cracks in the modern/colonial/capitalist/cis-heteropatriarchal world-system. This where the proposition of teaching of counter-colonial philosophy implicated with the anti-racist / anti-sexist agenda might be able to establish emancipatory horizons that contribute to decolonization of body and thought as a freedom practice (^{HOOKS, 2017}).