Significant changes to the history curriculum are expected next year.
Image: File
THE argument over the 2026 amendment to the CAPS history curriculum has been framed as a struggle between those who want to decolonise the curriculum, and those who want to defend a conservative “the West is best” version of history.
That is the wrong contrast. The real question is whether South Africa is replacing a working history curriculum with one that confuses inquiry and powerful knowledge with identity politics.
The amendment is substantial. Pre-colonial African civilisations such as Great Zimbabwe, the Mali empire of Mansa Musa, the Timbuktu manuscript tradition, and Ethiopian state formation move to the centre of the curriculum where world history topics once stood.
The Cold War, the Arab-Israeli conflict, United States civil rights movement, and large parts of 20th-century political economy are reduced or removed. Oral tradition is elevated alongside written archives, while archaeology and the deep past, stretching back hundreds of thousands of years, are stitched in.
A ministerial task team of academic historians with decolonial commitments drove the process. History teachers, teacher educators, textbook writers and examination specialists were barely present. Now to the headline. The word “woke” has two meanings that matter here.
In the right-wing sense, woke means a curriculum that replaces open inquiry with pre-given conclusions and, worst of all, uses the language of critical thinking to deliver a predetermined politics and identity. In the older black political sense developed by Garvey, Biko and Fanon, woke meant the opposite: a refusal to accept official knowledge at face value, an alertness to the gap between what institutions claim and what they do.
The amended curriculum is woke in the first sense, and betrays the second. The right-wing complaint, stripped of its bad faith, identifies something real. A curriculum becomes woke in the damaging sense not when it changes content, but when it decides in advance what pupils must conclude and be. Pupils are expected to reject the empty land myth, reject pseudo-scientific racism, and treat tribalism as a colonial construction and embrace a decolonial vision. These are defensible conclusions. But a curriculum that prescribes the conclusion before the investigation forms assent, not judgement.
A pupil who reached an unconventional conclusion on tribalism after serious engagement with evidence would be wrong, according to the curriculum. Multi-perspectivity is named. The range of legitimate conclusions is narrowed in advance. The betrayal of the older radical meaning of woke cuts deeper. Fanon warned about the colonised intellectual who recovers the past through the categories of the coloniser, mistaking cultural rehabilitation for liberation.
Great Zimbabwe is presented as important because it demonstrates recognisable state formation. Timbuktu matters because it can be described in terms a Western university can honour. Mansa Musa matters because his pilgrimage disturbed gold markets in ways external records can register. The content is African-centred. The criteria of significance remain those colonial modernity established. The tradition that taught people not to trust official knowledge has been turned into official knowledge.
Biko was warning against this condition, not endorsing it. Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò sharpens the point. His criticism of decolonial discourse is not that Africa should forget colonialism. It is that African thought cannot live by turning backwards in search of injured purity, or by measuring its worth against the coloniser’s categories. A serious African future requires agency, judgement, and an understanding of how the whole world works. It does not require a curriculum that stages Africa as wounded, virtuous, and in need of moral vindication.
Defenders of the amendment rely on a false comparison. They write as though the choice was between apartheid history and a decolonial alternative. That was not the choice. The existing CAPS history curriculum had already broken with apartheid historiography. It includes the Scramble for Africa, African resistance, liberation struggles in substantial detail, African independence, colonialism, nationalism, imperialism, and the Cold War in substantial form. It also gives pupils concepts that travelled.
A pupil who understood imperialism, capitalism, nationalism, and evidence-based explanation could use those tools well beyond the cases studied. A pupil who grasps imperialism as a structured relationship between states, economies and power can carry the idea into post-apartheid extraction, global finance, Chinese investment, mineral dependence, and the structural background to load-shedding. That is what powerful knowledge is: not only content, but the conceptual power to move beyond common sense and local experience.
The amendment includes content and methodologies unfamiliar to most teachers, unsupported by existing textbooks, and not yet embedded in examination practice. It will need a lead-in time of at least three years to develop new textbooks, and to provide professional development for history teachers. Teachers will need to learn new topics as well as develop understandings of the use of archaeology and oral histories as evidence. If there is not substantial support and time given for this process, the cost will not be distributed evenly.
In well-resourced schools, a strong history teacher can mediate the transition and hold the decolonial framing at critical distance. In the majority of South African schools, that will not happen. Teachers with little support will teach the authorised line. Pupils will receive the rhetoric of transformation without the means to test whether it is true, or the tools that allow the mind to travel beyond the script placed before it.
And so we arrive at the deepest irony. A curriculum designed to raise political consciousness may end by lowering intellectual independence. It may ask the most vulnerable pupils in the system not to investigate history, but to recite its approved meaning. In well-resourced schools, strong teachers will run with the new amendment using argument, context and critique.
In the majority of South African schools, there will be no such buffer. There, the new curriculum is likely to arrive not as emancipation, but as script: a set of correct moral gestures detached from the difficult discipline of evidence, causation and judgement. The wealthier pupil may still be taught how to think. The poorer pupil may simply be taught what to say. That would be the final betrayal of a curriculum that claims to speak in the name of liberation.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
THE POST