Dear Minister Siviwe Gwarube,
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to you with a deep and sincere concern regarding the way in which the history of South Africa is being taught in schools today.
As the Minister responsible for shaping the educational landscape in our country, you hold the power to influence how future generations understand our country’s shared past, and how they view one another. It is for this reason that I urge you to reconsider how we are teaching the history of our country, particularly the period of colonisation, conquest, and the birth of modern South Africa.
In the current curriculum, European colonisation is presented as a narrative of unprovoked, inherent evil, with the Dutch, British, and other colonisers depicted as the sole perpetrators of the systemic exploitation and oppression of African peoples. While these actions and their consequences are undeniably tragic, I believe that this one-sided portrayal does a disservice to both our history and our ability to heal as a nation. By neglecting the broader context of history, which includes the similar actions carried out by pre-colonial African kingdoms, we risk fostering division, resentment, and a distorted understanding of what truly transpired.
South Africa’s history of conquest, empire-building, and state formation did not begin with the arrival of Europeans in the 17th century. Rather, these processes have been a consistent part of human history for millennia, across all continents, cultures, and peoples. This is why the present approach to history education – one that isolates European colonisation as a uniquely evil occurrence – becomes problematic. By framing history solely through the lens of white colonisation and apartheid, we exclude the broader pattern of conquest and empire-building that was the order of the day, not only in Africa but in every corner of the globe.
It is therefore not only necessary, but urgent, that we reconsider how we teach our children about the history of this country. I propose that we adopt a more balanced approach – one that presents the full history of South Africa, considering both the indigenous conquests by African kingdoms and the subsequent arrival of Europeans. This will allow for a deeper, more complex understanding of the forces that shaped the South Africa we know today.
The Zulu and Pedi Kingdoms: Conquests within Africa
To begin with, let us examine the rise of two of South Africa’s most prominent kingdoms: the Zulu and the Bapedi (Sekhukhune) kingdoms. These two kingdoms are often celebrated as symbols of African pride, resilience, and unity. They are lauded for their ability to resist European colonisation, and their histories are integral to the broader narrative of African resistance to foreign domination. However, what is often overlooked is that both the Zulu and Bapedi kingdoms came into existence through conquest, violence, and the subjugation of other peoples.
Take the example of Shaka Zulu, the founder of the Zulu Kingdom, and one of the most well-known figures in South African history. Shaka’s rise to power was marked by extreme violence and the expansion of his kingdom through the forced displacement and destruction of smaller neighbouring communities. The Mfecane or ‘Crushing’ was a period of immense upheaval in southern Africa, which began during Shaka’s reign. The Zulu expansion resulted in the forced migration of many communities, including the Ndwandwe, Mthethwa, and Qwabe peoples, who were either defeated in battle or displaced from their land. Thousands lost their lives, and entire communities were destroyed.
Shaka’s conquests were not the exception, but the norm in pre-colonial Africa. In fact, many African kingdoms grew through violent territorial expansion. Conquest, empire-building, and the subjugation of other peoples were widespread practices throughout Africa long before the first European ships arrived on the southern tip of the continent. Shaka’s successors, including Dingane and Cetshwayo, continued the legacy of conquest, further expanding the Zulu Kingdom by force.
Similarly, the rise of the Bapedi Kingdom under King Sekhukhune also involved the conquest of neighbouring groups. Sekhukhune’s kingdom expanded through violent means, subjugating smaller groups. Like Shaka, Sekhukhune employed military might and forceful diplomacy to bring various groups under his rule. This is a critical aspect of South Africa’s history that is often overlooked in contemporary discussions, yet it is essential to understanding the broader patterns of power struggles that have always shaped the region.
When we examine the histories of the Zulu and Bapedi kingdoms, it becomes apparent that these empires, which are often presented as noble and pure, were built on conquest and violence. This is not to diminish their significance or the accomplishments of these kingdoms, but to highlight the reality that these kingdoms were, in many ways, no different from the European colonisers in their methods of empire-building. The primary difference lies in the race of the people involved in the conquest – European colonisers were white, while the leaders of the Zulu and Bapedi kingdoms were African. This distinction in skin colour should not be the sole factor in determining whether or not a conquest is deemed just or unjust.
The Inconsistency of History Education
It is both illogical and inconsistent to celebrate the conquests of the Zulu and Bapedi kingdoms while simultaneously condemning the conquests of European colonisers. Both were acts of empire-building, both resulted in the subjugation and displacement of other peoples, and both involved the use of violence. The key difference is the race of the conquerors, but why should race alone determine whether an act of conquest is considered just or unjust?
When we uphold African kingdoms like the Zulu and Bapedi as models of pride and resistance, while condemning European colonisation as inherently evil, we are not only presenting an incomplete picture of history, but we are also contributing to a false dichotomy between “good” Africans and “evil” Europeans. This dichotomy is dangerous. It risks fostering a mindset that views white South Africans as the inheritors of a legacy of theft and exploitation, while portraying all Africans as innocent victims of history.
The consequence of this one-sided approach to history education is that it has created a racialised narrative in which white people are demonised for actions that were, in fact, part of the global order of the time. While European colonial powers did indeed introduce uniquely exploitative and racist ideologies, the practice of conquest and empire-building – especially in Africa – was not limited to Europeans. The African kingdoms that we now view with admiration, such as the Zulu and Bapedi, engaged in similar practices of domination and subjugation.
By focusing exclusively on the wrongs of European colonisation without providing a broader historical context, we risk perpetuating hatred and division. (I use the word ‘wrongs’ because it’s the closest term, but upon reflecting more deeply and considering the historical context, can we truly call it wrong, or was it simply the way things were done at the time? Societies often conquered others, and this was a standard practice. It can only truly be deemed wrong when viewed through today’s lens, as humanity has made significant progress in how power is acquired and exercised). We risk painting one group of people as inherently evil and the other as inherently good, creating a foundation for racial resentment rather than mutual understanding. This approach not only distorts our history but also perpetuates a dangerous and reductionist view of the world.
The Need for a Balanced History Curriculum
Minister, what South Africa needs is a revision of its history curriculum. Learners must be taught that the history of our country is far more complex than the simplistic narrative currently being presented. They need to understand that European colonisation was not an isolated phenomenon but part of a broader pattern of empire-building that was common to all human societies. They must be taught that the Zulu and Bapedi kingdoms, like European colonial powers, expanded their territories through conquest, violence, and subjugation.
This is not an attempt to justify or excuse the actions of European colonisers, nor is it an attempt to undermine the histories of African kingdoms. On the contrary, it is an effort to provide a more accurate and nuanced understanding of our history – one that acknowledges the complexity of human behaviour and the norms of the time. It is crucial that learners understand that the practices of empire-building, though harmful, were not exclusive to any one group. This knowledge will enable future generations to view the past with a greater sense of empathy, understanding, and critical thinking.
Furthermore, presenting history as a complex and interconnected web of events will allow us to move beyond racial binaries and the harmful stereotypes that perpetuate division. By teaching the full story of our past, we can empower learners to recognise that no group is inherently good or bad, but that history is shaped by the actions of people, societies, and institutions, all of whom were products of their time.
History Education and Race-Based Politics
One of the most concerning consequences of the current history curriculum is how it feeds into race-based political narratives. Political parties like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) thrive primarily on rhetoric that is anti-white and based on race, feeding off the resentment and division that is perpetuated through the current historical education system. These parties leverage the one-sided narrative of history to mobilise support, often casting white South Africans as the enemy and framing them as the sole perpetrators of injustice.
A revision of the history curriculum could play a critical role in weakening the grip of race-based political parties that thrive on division. By presenting a more accurate, comprehensive picture of South Africa’s past – one that acknowledges both the colonisation of African peoples and the empire-building that occurred within the continent – it is possible to foster a new consciousness among the South African people. This consciousness would be rooted in the understanding that the complexities of history are not defined by race but by the human actions of conquest, power struggles, and the pursuit of resources, which transcend skin colour.
The path forward for South Africa cannot be one that continues to divide people along racial lines. To truly move forward as a nation, we need a shift in focus – from racial narratives to a focus on how we can rebuild, reconcile, and create a better future for all. The history curriculum plays a key role in shaping that future.
The Importance of an Inclusive History for Reconciliation
Finally, Minister Gwarube, revising the history curriculum is not merely an academic exercise; it is a vital step toward national reconciliation. A more balanced understanding of South Africa’s past will allow us to break free from the divisions of race and begin to address the deeper structural issues that persist in our society. If we continue to teach history in a way that reinforces racial divides, we risk perpetuating a culture of resentment and conflict.
Teaching history in a way that acknowledges the complexity of both African and European conquests will allow us to confront our shared past without resorting to simplistic moralising. It will give South Africans the tools to understand the forces that shaped our country, and it will provide a foundation for moving beyond the racial divides that continue to shape our politics and society.
Minister Siviwe Gwarube, I urge you to take the necessary steps to revise the history curriculum so that future generations can grow up with a more accurate, nuanced, and inclusive understanding of South Africa’s past. By doing so, we will not only heal the wounds of the past, but we will also lay the groundwork for a more united and reconciled future.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to seeing the steps your ministry will take in this important regard.
Sincerely,
Tiego Thotse
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend