1 Introduction

Studies in the field of indigenous education have intensified in Brazil, impacting the curricula of indigenous schools. In general, consistent with the reality of indigenous cultural diversity, these studies are based on a specific ethnic group, with emphasis on their own ways of dealing with schools, with the perspective of building them in an intercultural, bilingual, and differentiated way.

Far from opposing these studies, in this article, based on the analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with indigenous students, we will argue that, in addition to their own ethnic knowledge, indigenous people have made important contributions, using the expression of ^{Santos (2007}), to the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitanism, more specifically, of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum.

The concept of curriculum, as all concepts, is polysemic. Although we recognize the polysemy of the curriculum field, as do the authors used in this article, especially ^{Pinar (2007a}, 2007b, 2007c), we think that both the polysemy of the concept and the diversity of theories that support it are not a sign of fragility and immaturity of the field, but the expression of its richness and vitality.

Similarly, to the curriculum, mainly based on ^{Santos (2007}, 2008a, 2008b, 2017, 2019), cosmopolitanism can have different meanings: a hegemonic cosmopolitanism - with an accent on a logic in the market optics - and a subaltern cosmopolitanism. Thinking in these terms, it can be said that also in the field of curriculum it is possible to identify a hegemonic cosmopolitanism, via the commodification of the curriculum in accordance with the neoliberal ideology, and a subaltern cosmopolitanism, which defends a curriculum with public interests, concerned with cognitive justice and in avoiding epistemicides and waste of experiences (^{SANTOS, 2019})-a curriculum that contributes to avoid global risks (^{BECK, 2015}) and promotes the defense of all forms of life.

In the first moment of this article, we will problematize the hegemonic cosmopolitan curriculum and argue for a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum. In the second moment, based on the indigenous knowledge obtained through semi-structured interviews, we will show that this knowledge is indispensable for the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum. In the final considerations, we will highlight the need to include indigenous knowledge as a way to expand the possibilities of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum.

2 For a Subaltern Cosmopolitan Curriculum

One of the questions that arise when writing about a cosmopolitan curriculum is about its relevance, considering the diversity of peoples and cultures, both in local and national contexts; obviously, this diversity is even much greater in the global context. We find in ^{Beck (2015}) elements that help us think about this. For Beck (2015), the fact that we experience global risks that do not find solutions within modern science and not yet outside of it leads us to the need to be cosmopolitan. It is no longer a matter of simply avoiding the presence of difference, as this task has become impossible and is not ethically desirable, but of finding ways to live with it, creating bonds of solidarity and peaceful coexistence, as a way of avoiding the risks or at least mitigating them. Nor is it a matter of pretending or denying that we do not live in a global risk society, since such an attitude only increases the chances of risks (ecological, nuclear, terrorist, climate catastrophes...) becoming more rapidly a reality.

If, on the one hand, the global risk society has been used to justify the existence of authoritarian states, preventive wars or a greater control over us, such strategies, far from diminishing the risks, exponentiate them. Faced with this scenario, we have our still fragile experiences of solidarity, which are produced when risks effectively become reality. For ^{Beck (2015}), disasters, whether natural or resulting from human action, although the former also derive from human actions, more specifically those guided by modern science, even if they are not recognized as such by it, usually produce three reactions: "denial, apathy, or transformation" (^{BECK, 2015}, p. 100).

The first attitude is typical of modern science, incapable of self-criticism and, therefore, of recognizing itself as a producing agent also of world risks; the second, despite recognizing the risks and even associating them to modernity, resents and sees itself incapable of intervening; the third, the transforming attitude, ^{Beck (2015}) calls cosmopolitan. With this attitude, even recognizing that, in a sense, it is impossible to predict catastrophes, especially natural ones, because that is precisely why they are so named, it is possible "[...] to anticipate and prevent the catastrophes generated by itself [by modern science], in short, to deal with the insecurities created" (^{BECK, 2015}, p. 103). Although, from the economic point of view, the risk society has become a big business, with industries that profit billions with the promise of selling safety and eliminating risks, just like authoritarian governments, which promise measures to increase security but only restrict freedom, they also sell only the illusion of safety and the elimination of risk.

The possible reduction of risks does not pass through the adoption and intensification of these measures, because it is based on the normality of human actions and their consequences, when in the current context the greatest risks are not in normal actions, but precisely in the exceptions and in the reasons why they are produced. In this sense, we need a new paradigm: "[...] it is necessary to put the global social conditions of risk constitution at the center of attention, and not start by overcoming its consequences" (^{BECK, 2015}, p. 105).

By reflecting on the social conditions of the constitution of risk and its characteristics (delocalization, unpredictability, and non-compensability), we can find solutions in this reflection, without ignoring scientific knowledge, but complementing it "[...] with the power of imagination, suspicion, fiction, and fear" (^{BECK, 2015}, p. 130), including in relation to science and modernity. These are possibilities beyond the false promises of the security industries of authoritarian states (especially the United States, with its genocidal preventive wars that only increase global risks). These are solutions that glimpse promising paths to build a civil society that is not hostage to the neoliberal state - which aims only to be instrumentalized to optimize and legitimize the interests of capital - but capable of producing a cosmopolitan state that engages "[...] in the aura of human rights, global justice and the struggle for the new grand narrative of a radically democratic globalization" (BECK, 2015, p. 130).

These alternatives are available and, in a way, are produced by the global risk society itself. The risks are countless, and many of them are linked to the development of capitalism/neoliberalism, with its strategies of flexible accumulation and dismantling of social protections, which produce abysmal inequality, not to mention the rapid destruction of nature. The "[...] capitalist system is now more voracious for natural resources than it has ever been, the destruction of nature seems equally unstoppable, being trivialized by public cynicism, denial, or pseudo-remedies, as is the case of green capitalism" (^{SANTOS, 2019}, p. 49).

This increase in risks brings about a widespread perception that, to face them, the path passes through the recognition that no nation alone will solve the problem. With this, a "[...] positive-sum game is created, since those involved are also obliged to multiply the benefit of others" (^{BECK, 2015}, p. 127).

Although, for ^{Beck (2015}), this process is ongoing, we understand that, if we effectively want a cosmopolitan world, we need to think about a cosmopolitan education, a cosmopolitan curriculum. However, we emphasize that this curriculum cannot be imposed by experts, nor imposed through evaluation, but must be created in different contexts, with their specificities, and at the same time focused on local interests, recognizing that these interests are now affected by global interests. What would this cosmopolitan curriculum be?

One of the authors who has been engaged in the discussion of a curriculum with this characteristic is ^{Pinar (2007b}). Besides bringing cosmopolitanism, he writes about the planetary curriculum and the internationalization of the curriculum, issues usually addressed by authors who write about the cosmopolitan curriculum. For the author, when thinking about the curriculum, it is fundamental to consider the intellectual production of the field, without, however, falling in the trap of presenting it in a sequential way, as if it had happened in a stepby-step manner, without the presence of subjectivity and the specificities of a certain historical context.

Like the curriculum theorization itself, a curriculum "[...] incorporates the unpredictability of the present. As a vestige of the past, the present is a prediction of the future to come" (^{PINAR, 2007b}, p. 32). It is also important to consider that, unlike the modernist version of progress, based on consumerism and technological advances, which would have us believe that the "new" is always "better" and therefore always desirable, a curriculum needs to be "[...] carefully thought out, which is the same as saying respectfully, so that participants [...] can make their own judgments" (PINAR, 2007b, p. 33).

And this is effectively not the case with the current curriculum policies designed by transnational agencies. Curriculum policies have assumed a more transnational, supranational character, through a global referential: "[...] the curriculum is increasingly a project defined by knowledge sharing policies, originating in transnational and supranational agencies, making it a regulatory device for quality and efficiency" (^{PACHECO, 2014}, p. 66).

Although these agencies mention the incorporation of self-assessments these are not self-assessments since the assessment parameters are imposed from the outside. Although teachers, students, and other educational agents can make their own evaluation of the curriculum, it will only be accepted by external agents if it is in accordance with the indicators already defined; there is no room to take into account the criticism of the logic of the system itself: "[...] schools [and universities] are businesses driven by what matters: test scores" (^{PINAR, 2007b}, p. 34).

Even so, as ^{Pinar (2007b}) points out, curricula are not reduced to what is imposed by controlling bodies. Curricula are always marked by the "worldliness of the schools, the teachers, and the children they teach" (p. 33). In the current context, remembering that the present is always unpredictable and carries the traces of the past, but is also a possibility of the future, these curricula are articulated with planetary issues, either by the problems, which increasingly assume planetary characteristics, or by the search for solutions, which are not only local, but planetary. Like ^{Beck (2015}), Pinar (2007b) sees in the current planetary problems the possibility of building planetary solidarity bonds that can unite curriculum theorists in defense of some central issues, with emphasis on the defense of public schooling outside the logic of the market. The existence of a common enemy - the current school, with its corporate curriculum - can make and, in a way, is already making critical theorists, without eliminating their differences, unite to find alternatives to the current curriculum in the context of neoliberalism.

For ^{Pinar (2007a}), this is not exactly a novelty in the curriculum field. Something similar happened with the conceptualist theorists of the 1970s. Despite their differences (mainly because of the emphasis that one group gave to the individual, and the other, to the collective), they were united in criticizing the tylerian curriculum model, bringing political, cultural, historical, and gender issues to the center of the curriculum debate. The reconceptualists "[...] suggested that the function of curriculum studies was not development and management, but rather the wise and disciplined understanding of the educational experience, particularly in its political, cultural, gender, and historical dimensions" (^{PINAR, 2007a}, p. 202).

Still according to the author, another possibility of unity may lie in the imminent dangers that are all around us and that are also planetary (such as the ecological issue), for which there are not only local solutions, and that the logic of the neoliberal school curriculum ends up potentiating. The alternative to these dangers could provisionally be translated as sustainability. The author, even acknowledging that the question "what knowledge is most important?" requires permanent reiteration and that the answers will not be consensual, understands that sustainability is a collective answer: "in what threatens to be the Last Days, sustainability is certainly the collective answer" (^{PINAR, 2007b}, p. 37). The answer to the question, therefore, is not instrumental, but political and planetary. We can have common causes around which it is possible to unite for the "[...] subjective and social reconstruction through public education" (PINAR, 2007b, p. 34).

Another author who helps us a lot to think about a cosmopolitan curriculum and who is recurrently used in the fields of education and curriculum in Brazil, although not from these fields, is Santos (2005, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2019). To mark a clear position in relation to the pretensions of a process of economic globalization and neoliberal internationalization, the author has advocated "[...] the search for a subaltern cosmopolitanism, built from below in the processes of exchange of experiences and articulation of struggles between the movements and organizations of the excluded and their allies from various parts of the world." (^{SANTOS, 2019}, p. 49).

Therefore, it is about thinking a resistance at a global level, capable of putting in check the abyssal thinking that, through its fascist epistemology, produces epistemicides. "Epistemological fascism exists in the form of epistemicide, whose most violent version was the forced conversion and suppression of non-Western knowledge carried out by European colonialism and which continues today in forms that are not always subtle" (^{SANTOS, 2008a}, p. 28).

The author brings an important contribution to a cosmopolitan (subaltern) curriculum by bringing to the center of the question the Western epistemology and its totalitarian and fascist character, which does not recognize - or, at least, disqualifies and inferiorizes - the knowledge that has not been produced within this logic. This process has been going on since colonization, when scientific knowledge, seen as superior and able to explain who the colonial other was, his social organization, his life, and his beliefs, was producing the death of the knowledge and epistemologies of the colonized peoples, especially the indigenous and African epistemologies. This process was decisive to produce, on one hand, a Western superiority and, on the other hand, an inferiority in non-Westerners, that is, an abyssal epistemology was built (^{SANTOS, 2007}), which remains until today.

Inspired by Santos (2005, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2017, 2019), we can say that, just as in the context of colonization, the colonizer used his epistemology and knowledge to label and produce the other as incapable of governing himself and, therefore, in need of civilizing action, in the current context, international organizations linked to economically hegemonic countries impose the knowledge they consider necessary for all, via a system of international assessments, replicated in national contexts. This serves to show the supposed lack of knowledge of some (systematically blacks, indigenous, Latinos, and poor people in general) and the supposed excellence of others (whites, westerners, and some easterners, especially from developed countries), presenting the lack of knowledge of the former as a reason for their backwardness and underdevelopment, while the high level of knowledge and excellence serve to explain the development and wealth of the few. In this process, the history of colonization and the contemporary mechanisms of plundering, looting, domination, and massacre, whether by the financial market or through wars in the name of the defense of human rights and democracy (^{SANTOS, 2007}), are made invisible, as well as the autochthonous knowledge that sustained peoples and cultures for thousands of years without the presence of the colonizing knowledge, which, promising salvation and civilization, brought death, genocide, and epistemicide.

In this sense, the theoretical reflection, and the production of a cosmopolitan (subaltern) curriculum also goes through an epistemological issue, through the ability to challenge Western epistemology: "[...] political resistance must have epistemological resistance as a postulate" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 83). Besides including theoreticians from the so-called peripheral countries, such as Portugal and Brazil, as Pinar (2007) highlights, it is important to do a decolonial exercise that, on one hand, makes a self-criticism and, on the other hand, recognizes that epistemological diversity continues, despite centuries of epistemological fascism. "A new thinking is needed, a post-abyssal thinking" (SANTOS, 2007, p. 83). It is also important to learn from the struggles of social movements, with their epistemologies, their knowledge; these are our most important interlocutors so that we can make a permanent self-criticism that enhances a cosmopolitan (subaltern) curriculum.

This process of (self)critique, more than in relation to the positivist/modern epistemology, foundation of the neoliberal society, about which there is no doubt in relation to the interests that move it and which it serves, because the critical and post-critical theorists were able to show them, implies an internal critique, it implies looking inside the critical and post-critical theories. This is to, at first, identify fascist and epistemicidal practices, and then to be able to fight against them, recognizing that there is no knowledge that is only emancipatory - it is not given, it is always a process in which we often make mistakes. Not rarely, even if unintentionally, what we think is used to produce oppression, legitimize hierarchies, reinforce abyssal thinking. Therefore, a daily epistemological vigilance, even if it cannot prevent the construction of theories and curricula that produce effects that we do not control, can help us to attenuate them and, more quickly, to realize that it is convenient to invest our energies in other theorizations and practices.

What is encouraging is that, according to ^{Santos (2007}), it is possible to perceive signs of the emergence of subaltern cosmopolitanism since the 1970s. It is a cosmopolitanism thought not from the point of view of those who can enjoy it, that is, as a privilege of a group that lives in a cosmopolitan way because it is able to travel and see the world, but precisely in the practices of cultural groups and subjects made invisible by the hegemonic use of the concept. According to the author, historically, the concept has been used, either as a political instrument or as an epistemological tool, with the assumption of an abstract inclusion, "[...] to defend the exclusivist interests of any specific group. In a sense, cosmopolitanism has always been a privilege only within the reach of a few" (^{SANTOS, 2017}, p. 53). Therefore, a deconstructive attitude is needed to give it another meaning and construct it as subaltern cosmopolitanism.

^{Santos (2007}) points out the indigenous people of America as those who can most contribute with their conceptions and practices to the construction of subaltern cosmopolitanism, because in them it is possible to perceive what the author calls post-abyssal thinking. Therefore, it is a thought that does not create an abyss between different ways of thinking, which does not waste experiences, which does not assume the existence of a single thought, in short, that does not move within the logic of epistemological fascism.

Still according to ^{Santos (2007}), it is important to characterize cosmopolitanism, because without adjectivation it loses its specificity. It is about thinking of a cosmopolitanism that because it is based on counter-hegemonic struggles, constitutes a global counterhegemonic movement against global/neoliberal capitalism.

Subaltern cosmopolitanism manifests itself through the various movements and organizations that configure counter-hegemonic globalization, fighting against the social, economic, political, and cultural exclusion generated by the most recent incarnation of global capitalism, known as "neoliberal globalization" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 83).

Since inequality and social exclusion have historically been and continue to be based in the neoliberal context, on power asymmetries, the different social movements move with the redistribution of different resources (political, material, social, cultural) as their horizon, which, as ^{Santos (2007}) postulates, does not become possible without a cognitive justice, which we can translate in the field of education; which does not become possible without the transformation of the neoliberal curriculum and the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum that brings to the center the knowledges historically silenced by the fascist epistemology. In this sense, "[...] the more non-Western understandings that are identified, the more evident it will become that there are still many more to be identified and that hybrid understandings - with Western and non-Western elements - are virtually infinite" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 84).

Therefore, for subaltern cosmopolitanism to gain increased strength, it is necessary to recognize the inexhaustible epistemological diversity and take it as a method for the construction of (cosmopolitan) knowledge, which implies "[...] a radical break with the Western modernity ways of thinking and acting" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 85).

It means recognizing that there is much more to learn from countries and subjects that have non-Western epistemologies than can be assumed at this point. Their knowledge has inexhaustible diversity and richness, and Western knowledge, far from being unique and universal, represents only one more of the many possible ways of knowing. Thus, there is no universal or general epistemology. As ^{Santos (2007}) states, in this transitional period of leaving the abyssal epistemology, we must retain the general idea, a kind of "[...] general epistemology of the impossibility of a general epistemology" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 86).

But this impossibility of a general epistemology does not mean that local knowledge should stay within the limits of the local. It is important to find forms of articulation that allow their circulation at the global level: "given that resistance against abyssal lines needs to occur at a global scale, it is imperative to develop some kind of articulation between subaltern experiences through links between the local and the global" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 89).

It is also important to find forms of translation that enable dialogue and that are far beyond linguistic translations, to see which concerns are common, which are likely to be approximated, and which are not (yet) likely to become common. Again, unrelenting epistemological vigilance becomes necessary, so that these translation processes are not an updated version of abyssal thinking or a "softer" version of imperialism and colonialism. If we have signs of the emergence of this subaltern cosmopolitanism, including in the field of curriculum, perceived in the criticisms in different parts of the world to the neoliberal curriculum, these signs seem to us more intense when we analyze the presence of indigenous people in the university and their knowledge.

Since inequality and social exclusion have historically been and continue to be based in the neoliberal context, on power asymmetries, the different social movements move with the redistribution of different resources (political, material, social, cultural) as their horizon, which, as ^{Santos (2007}) postulates, does not become possible without a cognitive justice, which we can translate in the field of education; which does not become possible without the transformation of the neoliberal curriculum and the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum that brings to the center the knowledges historically silenced by the fascist epistemology. In this sense, "[...] the more non-Western understandings that are identified, the more evident it will become that there are still many more to be identified and that hybrid understandings - with Western and non-Western elements - are virtually infinite" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 84).

Therefore, for subaltern cosmopolitanism to gain increased strength, it is necessary to recognize the inexhaustible epistemological diversity and take it as a method for the construction of (cosmopolitan) knowledge, which implies "[...] a radical break with the Western modernity ways of thinking and acting" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 85).

It means recognizing that there is much more to learn from countries and subjects that have non-Western epistemologies than can be assumed at this point. Their knowledge has inexhaustible diversity and richness, and Western knowledge, far from being unique and universal, represents only one more of the many possible ways of knowing. Thus, there is no universal or general epistemology. As ^{Santos (2007}) states, in this transitional period of leaving the abyssal epistemology, we must retain the general idea, a kind of "[...] general epistemology of the impossibility of a general epistemology" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 86).

But this impossibility of a general epistemology does not mean that local knowledge should stay within the limits of the local. It is important to find forms of articulation that allow their circulation at the global level: "given that resistance against abyssal lines needs to occur at a global scale, it is imperative to develop some kind of articulation between subaltern experiences through links between the local and the global" (^{SANTOS, 2007}, p. 89).

It is also important to find forms of translation that enable dialogue and that are far beyond linguistic translations, to see which concerns are common, which are likely to be approximated, and which are not (yet) likely to become common. Again, unrelenting epistemological vigilance becomes necessary, so that these translation processes are not an updated version of abyssal thinking or a "softer" version of imperialism and colonialism. If we have signs of the emergence of this subaltern cosmopolitanism, including in the field of curriculum, perceived in the criticisms in different parts of the world to the neoliberal curriculum, these signs seem to us more intense when we analyze the presence of indigenous people in the university and their knowledge.

3 Some Indigenous Contributions

In this article, we will mention six indigenous academics from different undergraduate courses and ethnic groups in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Mato Grosso do Sul who study at a higher education institution located in Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul. To maintain guaranteed anonymity when conducting the interviews, we will name the indigenous people only by letters and will not provide any identifying information. The interviews, due to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, were conducted via Google Meet.

It is understood that the interviews, of semi-structured nature, are a data collection tool quite legitimized in the field of education, in the case of qualitative research, being important the attitude of listening: "this is a great challenge, because we are often captured in logics of repetition that make us hear what we always hear, ask what we always ask and think what we always think" (^{SOUSA, 2015}, p. 87).

The choice of indigenous academics from teacher-training courses (Biology, Physical Education, Literature, Pedagogy, History), according to our understanding, contributes to show how indigenous people are occupying different spaces, without losing the dimension of struggle and resistance, and are contributing, as highlighted by ^{Santos (2007}), to the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum. The analysis, besides the authors already mentioned, was based on the field of indigenous education.

We understand that the knowledge produced is always the result of social and historical relations; it is knowledge articulated with culture. No matter how much Western epistemology insists on the existence of a pure epistemological subject every epistemological subject is an epochal and contextual subject (^{HALL, 2003}). In the case of indigenous populations, their knowledge has historically resisted the imposition of Western knowledge and the epistemology that produces it, especially when it comes to the knowledge produced about indigenous people.

The speech of indigenous A, as we will see below, shows the need to deconstruct the stereotypes invented by the Western/fascist epistemology (^{SANTOS, 2007}), and the way to do this is to listen to the indigenous people. He reminds us that these stereotypes are present in the curricula, especially in textbooks, which is in line with what researches in the field of indigenous education point out: "[...] stereotypes, images and negative representations of the native peoples as lazy, savages, primitive, backward cultures, etc. are reproduced in the education processes in schools and are still present in textbooks. (^{BICALHO, OLIVEIRA E MACHADO, 2018}, p. 1594). However, in the encounter between indigenous and non-

indigenous students in undergraduate courses, everyone is affected, and, in this intercultural encounter, there are changes: "[...] non-indigenous academics are surprised with topics never discussed in the classroom, such as territory, territoriality, urban indigenous, nature as worldview, non-fragmented knowledge, contra disciplinarity and other epistemologies" (^{NASCIMENTO, VIEIRA E LANDA, 2019}, p. 403).

Indigenous A also mentions that his culture does not remain the same, it changes according to new needs. In a way, we can say that he points out the incompleteness of his culture, which is in line with ^{Santos (1997}), who states that, to think about building a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum, it is important to recognize that all cultures are incomplete. If, for the indigenous peoples, this seems to be a daily lived reality, the same cannot be said of the Western epistemological logic, which, as we have seen, in the current context, tries to impose a set of knowledge through cosmopolitan curricula articulated with market interests. Indigenous A brings another knowledge:

Most of the teachers in the course are female teachers, and they really like it when I involve them. I think that it is still very unknown. Even though there are many things, many people who have worked on researching indigenous people, there are still many things to be discovered. Because we are still very much stuck in that book, that we learn in school, that the Indian is only an arrow, the Indian only has that straight hair. That stereotype that we invent about the Indian. And I say a lot in class that we must know that we never lose our culture, we will always have our indigenous culture. But also, the villages, the personal relationship of the indigenous society inside a village, it also changes with time, because we have already had this contact with the city, with the white people. We have learned from the culture of the white people. So, it is highly likely that, as time goes by, it will change to meet our needs. I believe that our culture also, our indigenous society within a village, also changes to meet our needs as time goes by. So, I think that the teachers like me to talk about this at school [...] Every time I had to do an assignment that was free, they asked me to bring something indigenous into the classroom. (INDIGENA A).

Thus, we arrive at the first contribution of indigenous peoples to a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum: fighting against stereotypes, insisting on the right to say themselves through autochthonous epistemologies, showing others that all cultures invariably undergo transformations, including their own, and that it is possible to learn from other cultures. This is an important contribution, because indigenous people have a historical experience of how not to bend to Western logic, even under abyssal conditions (^{SANTOS, 2007}) of power relations. They live this reality intensely.

Another important issue when thinking about a cosmopolitan curriculum is that of language. ^{Pinar (2007a}) criticizes the fact that the English language is seen as the language of (hegemonic) cosmopolitanism and how the Americans, by not studying other languages, fail to learn from the experiences of other cultures, for example, Portuguese-speaking countries. In the Indigenous context, English language teaching becomes even more problematic: the "[...] history of English as the language of colonialism and the possible harm that language teaching represents in subaltern contexts make [the] dialogue vitally important to avoid imposing Western knowledge systems on Indigenous students" (^{RODRIGUES, ALBUQUERQUE, AND MILLER, 2019}, p. 10). Indigenous people, more radically than Pinar (2007a), argue for the use of the mother tongue and the need for the other to learn their language in order to understand their culture. Again, we are faced with a historical experience of how, despite learning the colonizer's language, not to fail to recognize the relevance of the native language to their culture and identity. The indigenous people, although they have gone through a violent process of imposition of the Portuguese language, today, in many schools, have bilingual education, guaranteed by the Federal Constitution of 1988, not as a gift from the State, but as the fruit of a collective achievement, spearheaded by the indigenous people. As the indigenous person B:

An especially important issue is the language. The language in the indigenous school is not Terena. Many fight to have a foreign language. We fight to have our language worked on in school because it is important. For example, you don't know any Terena language, how are you going to communicate with me? How are you going to understand my culture? Instead of studying English, you could study Terena.

Therefore, as the second contribution of indigenous peoples to a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum, we see that communication with the other does not happen by the imposition of a hegemonic language, nor is the culture of the other understood by ignoring and disqualifying their language. More than studying hegemonic languages, to expand the possibilities of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum, it is important to learn the language of the subalternized. If it is to learn the language of the hegemonic subjects, let it be to defend and affirm one's own culture and identity, as the indigenous people also teach us.

As well as language, the educational process is fundamental to think about a cosmopolitan subaltern curriculum. Education cannot be an imposition; a permanent dialogue is necessary for the students to realize the importance of being in school and of the knowledge circulating in this space. One cannot educate for freedom through repression, be it physical or symbolic. The student needs to feel good about being in school, to be there because he sees meaning in them and in the relationships that they establish with each other and with the other school subjects:

Now, I see that the child must know the importance of school, without anyone forcing him. Do you understand? "Oh, you have to stay in the classroom. No. They must understand that they need it there, that there is recess, that they can leave, leave, that nobody is holding them. Do you understand? I think so. I thought it was cool, so much so that they held a meeting with us, with the parents, asking if we wanted it to be like the one in the city. If they wanted, they would close it. It would only open to go away and to come back. But then the people didn't accept because this is like a jail, understand? The child must have autonomy and know what is good for him.

We are, therefore, facing yet another contribution of indigenous people to the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum: there is no break with the processes of subalternation and hierarchization, whether of subjects, knowledge, cultures or others, through an education that subalternates, which is based on abyssal power relations (^{SANTOS, 2019}) between teachers and students. As the indigenous person's speech shows, as well as countless researches carried out in indigenous schools, these, despite having been imposed as a colonizing institution, at the service of the colonizer, when appropriated by the indigenous people, become spaces/ times of valorization of the way of being indigenous: "resulting from very creative processes [. ...] we have seen in teaching practices diverse and innovative methodologies, such as literacy through singing, teaching through games, dialogued classes, besides a vast production of didactic materials that are used in the classroom" (^{BRAZ E VALADARES, 2021}, p. 5).

In this sense, again, the experience of indigenous people is highlighted. They know how to decolonize colonial spaces/times. They know how to transform institutions that were born to subalternate, such as the school curriculum in indigenous communities, into spaces/time of cultural and identity strengthening, therefore, radically against subalternation processes. We recall that "[...] any notion about curriculum is always a concrete way of referencing a given approach to knowledge" (^{PACHECO, 2016}, p. 100).

The question is what knowledge is important, what it is for, and how to approach it. Knowledge dissociated from the life and culture of students, besides making them stay in school out of obligation, at the very least, is a great lost possibility to build knowledge that strengthens the subjects in their struggles against the processes of subalternation. One cannot ignore that, "[...] in urban schools, the indigenous culture has usually been related to the Indian Day, most often presenting a romanticized, stereotyped and prejudiced culture" (^{BRAZ E VALADARES, 2021}, p. 3). Therefore, when recognizing that knowledge is important, one is not saying that any knowledge is. It needs to be a knowledge articulated with life, and the pedagogical approach will make all the difference in the construction process of the subjects.

The way of teaching is different in indigenous schools, and it needs to be different. Knowledge is important, but the way of teaching, of approaching the subject, must be different, because teaching in a village is quite different. So, the teacher's way of approaching it needs to be adapted to the indigenous reality, as Paulo Freire did. In the way he teaches, using a language from the indigenous children's experience, from the indigenous culture. (INDIGENOUS D).

Here, then, is the fourth contribution of indigenous people to the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum: knowledge is important, but it needs to be worked pedagogically in a way that makes sense to the students. Therefore, some knowledge is not important because it was produced by a hegemonic group that, in each context, is able to impose it in the curriculum. Some knowledge is important if it dialogues with the students' lives if it is articulated to the culture. It is worth pointing out that indigenous schools have gradually managed to establish a dialogue between different types of knowledge, not by the logic of hierarchization, but by the logic of complementarity of knowledge, through their own pedagogies.

From the perspective of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum, the question is to perceive which struggles and which groups also go through subalternation processes, and it is possible to establish alliances to strengthen the struggle of the different subalternized groups. Indigenous people have resisted the imposition of Western culture and its mode of production for more than five centuries. They fight for the retaking of their territories and against a predatory way of life, as is the current neoliberal model.

Because inside the university, we, Indians, blacks, we have to show our potential too, so that everybody knows that we also have the right to be there, to study, to have a good quality education and show that we are also ahead, that we can [...] "Why do Indians want land? Because they don't work. Like this, these things that you hear. Because, even in our class that we had about indigenous culture, the teacher talked a lot about this. Then some students ask: "Why? If he must live in the bush, keep living there, he can't have a cell phone, he can't have internet. They have that very closed vision. So, this does hurt our ears because we always hear this. But it is a cause in which we still have many barriers to face (INDIGENA E).

As can be observed, the indigenous people see in the black groups, who also systematically go through processes of subalternation, a possibility to create bonds of solidarity to affirm their way of life and their culture. The creation of solidarity bonds between subalternized groups strengthens the struggle for a quality education that encompasses the diversity of subjects and cultures. They contribute to realize that incorporating some Western technologies (cell phone, Internet) does not make the identity disappear, and that it is not fixed, but constructed according to the contexts experienced: "indigenous people do not cease to be who they are by using non-indigenous things and methods. Although it is the result of the violent and systematic removal of traditional peoples from their lands, for many it was the only way to survive" (^{ANDRADE, 2019}, p. 326).

Indigenous people show that land does not need to be a source of profit and wealth for the few; it can be seen as territory that affirms all forms of life, which sees the interdependence of all beings. Likewise, work need not be a form of exploitation of human beings by human beings, nor a form of depredation of nature: "[...] recent reality insists on showing us that we can only save the planet and preserve dignified life if we are willing to learn from excluded and oppressed knowledges" (^{SANTOS, 2019}, p. 57).

Thus, we are facing the fifth contribution of indigenous people to the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum: to form bonds of solidarity between the different historically subalternized groups, with emphasis on black people, to affirm more intensely other ways of seeing culture and identity (as dynamic, not stereotyped), of relating to nature (not to depredate it, but to see oneself inseparable from it) and of understanding work (not as accumulation of wealth and exploitation of human beings and nature). Finally, indigenous people show us not only that another world, another mode of production, another way of relating to nature is possible, but also that these effectively have always existed and continue to exist, and that their experiences are fundamental for the creation of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum.

Finally, besides building solidarity bonds with other subalternized groups, with the indigenous people, we learn to establish a dialogue, even when this is not desired by the other. Historically, the subjects produced by Western logic have had difficulty dialoguing with indigenous people, because, instead of listening to them and recognizing them as subjects of knowledge, they base themselves on an epistemology that invisibilizes and subalternizes them, not establishing a dialogue. However, "this lack of dialogue with other cultures and the university's unsuitability, [...], in the eyes of society, are mistakenly interpreted as the indigenous people's incapacity, the one who cannot keep up, the backward". (^{LISBÔA E NEVES E, 2019}, p. 11). Even so, indigenous people, when speaking about their identities and cultures, seek to build bridges, inviting others to listen and talk to them:

[...] we presented a paper. The professor asked us to present a work about how it is. And I and the other indigenous academics also, from Pedagogy and Biology, we presented a work about our culture. I thought it was particularly good to talk about it. [...] So, for us, who are indigenous, it is a little difficult, because many people don't talk to us much. At the beginning of the semester, especially. I had some friends that talked to me [...] Then it was a little difficult. (INDIGENA F).

So, as the sixth contribution of indigenous people to the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum, we have that it is necessary to resist, insist and continue building bridges for dialogue. If for more than five centuries indigenous people have systematically not been heard by the abyssal epistemology (^{SANTOS, 2019}), they know that this does not mean that what they say (their knowledge) has no relevance, but that it is necessary to continue the struggle, because it is a struggle in favor of life, not only of those who live this time, but, above all, of the possibilities of future life. "Indigenous knowledge is always willing to go to the ultimate consequences to protect life, in all its forms, small and large, fragile and strong, because they are parts of the same web of life, the same human culture" (^{ANDRADE, 2019}, p. 326).

Therefore, with indigenous people, we learn that the process of building a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum is not something that happens quickly; it is a process that occurs on a daily basis and over the long term. Moreover, it is not because the struggle is ignored by hegemonic subjects that it should be put under suspicion. Indigenous people teach us that, even if it is a secular struggle, it is necessary so that life can continue in its multiple forms.

4 Final Considerations

As in no other historical moment, the field of curriculum must take on the commitment of, in addition to making the critique of the school and curriculum in the service of the market, to give global visibility to the countless non-abyssal curricula and thinking (^{SANTOS, 2019}) practiced in different parts of the world.

There is much to be analyzed and denaturalized in these times of hegemonic cosmopolitan curriculum and its internationalization via the market. It is worth analyzing how the field of curriculum has or has not resisted, totally or partially, not only in the sense of opposing the neoliberal curriculum, but also in that of continuing to think and practice other curricula.

The circulation of alternative experiences and local resistance throughout the world, whether of theoreticians, teachers, and students, but especially of social movements, with emphasis on the indigenous experiences, contributes to create a curricular atmosphere that causes fissures in the hegemony of the neoliberal curriculum, collaborating to its deconstruction and the creation of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum. These experiences put in check the waste of experience that the hegemonic cosmopolitan curriculum provokes, the subalternization it reiterates, the cognitive injustice it maintains (^{SANTOS, 2007}, 2008a, 2017, 2019Availability of data and material), the barbarism it produces.

We need to have transformative attitudes and, as we have sought to demonstrate, we have much to learn from indigenous people. We need to continue showing the risks and negative effects of a neoliberal cosmopolitan curriculum, but without giving up thinking and proposing transformative alternatives capable of articulating and putting into communication theoretical and practical experiences from different parts of the world (subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum), without the pretension of establishing hierarchies that inferiorize, comparisons that subalternize, rankings that disqualify, competitions that divide.

It is necessary to be permanently vigilant so that the experiences that enhance dialogue, the differences that allow us to learn from each other, the cooperation that strengthens us, and the solidarity that unites us around things that are worth fighting for collectively, prevail. In this process, the more we understand that indigenous knowledge is indispensable for the construction of a subaltern cosmopolitan curriculum, the more steps we will take towards its construction.