A fair account of South African history requires multifocal lenses – not just an African lens.
Image: File
In the preface of their groundbreaking two volume Oxford History of South Africa, published in 1969 and 1971, Monica Wilson and Leonard Thompson stated: “It is particularly difficult to write the history of a society which has become as rigidly stratified as South African society. Group focus is conditioned by the prejudices of (one’s) own community.”
Of course, the major criticism of the pre-1994 history syllabus is that it ignored the history of indigenous people, and was Western and settler in focus. But in terms of context, those were the shapers of causes and effects, the arbiters of what took place, and therefore, the engine room of history.
In his appeal for further revision of the curriculum for historical studies, Selvan Naidoo (the POST, April 22 – 27) makes a deserving case for the exposure of greater focus on the history of India, and of Indians in South Africa.
But if intense group focus is to be afforded to every other neglected community, contextualised within the powers that shaped the various periods, the curriculum would become unwieldy.
New histories that focus on what was previously ignored, nonetheless, have to make reference to the movers and shakers of the past for the sake of context. Although in terms of the Curriculum Assessment and Policy Statements (CAPS), pupils are encouraged to “study different interpretations, and divergent interpretations and voices”, one needs to appreciate that often what is presented as "divers" may simply be a variation in tone and volume from the prescribed narrative.
Omission and commission are two aspects that shape historical accounts. The first concerns what is left out. Was it because it deviated from the narrative being advanced or was it simply seen as irrelevant? Factual content that is included or excluded from an account may be to accord with a particular political or ideological approach. For example, current Grade 12 history on events in South Africa during the bloody 1980s focuses only on the actions of the government security forces. No mention is made of ANC violence, and the gruesome necklacing of often innocent people.
Naidoo’s endorsement of the 1955 Freedom Charter is another issue which, in terms of objective teaching, should note that it was written by communists and reflects communist ideology. This is obvious from the lack of any reference to religion, multiparty democracy and private enterprise.
All its references to “the people” disguise the reality that the Communist Party owns everything and rules in the name of “the people”. Not one of the promises of enjoying the national wealth, free occupation of land, housing, security, employment and comfort for all has materialised for “the people” – only for the party-connected minority. Thus, honest teaching of the Freedom Charter should refer to it as the “Servitude Charter”.
A fair account of South African history requires multifocal lenses – not just an African lens. At the same time, a history syllabus should be seen as a basic introduction to the vast and varied canvas of the past, and not as an ideological tool.
DR DUNCAN DU BOIS
Bluff
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.