Society has proven that when a person or group of people claim to have more knowledge than another person or group, they often show power over one another. By being knowledgeable about a certain topic, subject, or time in history a person can use that knowledge to gain power. Knowledge and power directly correlate to Eurocentric social studies curriculums globally. These connections are made by what Au, Brown & Calderon call the role of whiteness and silence that excludes non-white voices to be heard in historical context further spreading the white Eurocentric social studies curriculum. In our past, we see how movements regarding social studies curriculum either progress or digress inclusion of the forgotten voices in history. For instance, modern-day states argue over critical race theory and the effects it has on children in school. The critical race theory critiques liberalism and argues that whites have been the primary beneficiaries of civil rights legislation. This directly connects to how the curriculum is made for schools because it’s the people in power who spread the knowledge they want others to hear. From our reading by LaGarrett J. King, he states, “Even the more liberal social studies movements, such as the progressive and social reconstruction periods, continued the “regime of truth” (Foucault, 1977) of White superiority and Black inferiority (King, Davis, & Brown, 2012; Watkins, 2006).” As white supremacy overtakes the school curriculum through different means we look at what Ross describes as the “struggle” for social studies curriculum. Ross states, “Operationally curriculum-standards projects in social studies are anti-democratic because they severely restrict the legitimate role of teachers and other educational professionals, as well as members of the public, from participating in the conversation about the origin, nature, and ethics of knowledge taught in the social studies curriculum” (Ross, 29). In this verbiage of teachers as “curriculum conduits” the curriculum-centralization efforts in instruction are and can be separated from curricular goals and objectives. Teachers should not only be a conduit of the curriculum for students but be included in the full participation of creating the curriculum. Struggles in the curriculum come at all angles but it’s what Ross says at the end of the article that resonates with me. “It is the struggles over these contradictions that have shaped the nature of the social studies curriculum in the past and continue to define it today” (Ross, 32). Whiteness overcomes the school’s curriculum outlining different ethnic groups struggling for inclusion. Different groups such as Chicanos/Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans struggle for inclusion in the social studies curriculum because of the whiteness and silence embedded into the curriculum. “Despite a wide range of important intellectual ideas and tensions in the field of curriculum studies, the most significant voices to surface are again white male academics” (Au, Brown, Calderon, 6). The white male ideologies resemble Foucault's ideological construct informed by power. As for other studies a scholar named Blackwell decided to study and advocate for the study of “Genealogies of resistance.” Valenzuela states, “Such approaches draw from discarded and subjugated knowledge to create “new forms of consciousness customized to embodied material realities, political visions, and creative desires for societal transformation.” As generations move on the historical importance to change curriculums as time progresses is important in providing an inclusive learning environment for all students no matter race, gender, nationality. Au, Brown, and Calderon wrote about master narratives within the foundations of curriculum studies revealing truths about two sides. The “invisible” narrative of the foundation of curriculum studies has a massive hole in its ideas, histories, and theories. For instance, African American philosopher Alain Locke was one of the leading scholars of mainstream curriculum debates in the 20th century but he is often not mentioned. This is another example of how white Eurocentric ideas take priority over “invisible” narratives in history. In the invisible narratives, Asian Americans’ history in the curriculum is scarce. Other ethnicities are left out of the curriculum because of the whiteness that leads the plot of the curriculum. In the “master” narratives of the foundations of curriculum studies, the ideas, theories, and histories all fall under one “master” narrative excluding others. The “master” narrative is the whiteness and silence that has been embedded in the social studies curriculum throughout history. I do completely agree with these claims about the social studies curriculum. I agree because in the social studies curriculum the main storyline is led by white influencers that shaped the world. As a teacher, our goal is to make the content culturally relevant to not exclude a narrative from the curriculum’s storyline.