Teach them well and let them lead the way...
The Teacher’s Union’s proposal to teach more struggle history in schools is nothing more than a ploy to gain political favour, says Terence Pillay
Something that caught my attention this week was the proposal by the South African Democratic Teacher’s Union for schools to teach more South African struggle history as part of the school’s history syllabus.
For me, the focus should really be on teaching the ability to critically interpret a historical text or a historical analysis of a particular event. But the problem is you don’t have examples of that. When I was at school, it was just Jan van Reebiek and all that. Obviously, we did some international politics like the big wars and the Iranian revolution but that was pretty much what was taught in our history lessons.
I do think it’s important that we teach our history – all of it – or as much as you can fit into the curriculum; there’s a lot of history. And we need to ask: do we want people to be informed in an insular way – looking inwardly, or do you want them to have a sense of what’s happening on a global stage as well. Ideally, there should be a combination of both. But whatever is done, it should be looked at through the lens of how we critically evaluate history. And I think that one of the most important things to teach about history is that it’s written by the victors; the history books are written by the people who won the war.
The thing with this SADTU proposal is that it’s just pro-ANC. For me, it would be important to look at the history of the PAC and the Mass Democratic Movement. We should not confuse struggle history with ANC history. And the struggle was a mass democratic movement which involved the PAC, the UDM, and the unions, not just the ANC.
A number of different organisations across a range of different interest groups all acknowledged that apartheid is evil and we must get rid of it. The PAC’s Robert Sobukwe is actually considered to be the founder of the resistance movement against apartheid; then there’s Steve Bhiko from the Black Consciousness Movement; the Indian National Congress; and what about Black Sash, which was a movement of originally white women who protested against apartheid. It became a powerful movement on its own and still exists to this day. All these very important players should be included in the curriculum if struggle history is to be taught at schools.
What SADTU is saying is that they’re putting their might behind the ANC for the local government elections and they’re using history education as a vehicle to do this. I understand that the tripartite alliance between the ANC, SACP and Cosatu demands they do this, but that doesn’t make it right.
Contemporary South African history should be part of the curriculum. For example, what Thuli Madonsela did with the Public Protector’s Office should be part of the history we teach in schools in the absence of Political Science as a school subject.
So for me, SADTU’s proposal, for example, is not dissimilar to what that Westborough Baptist Church does in the US. They indoctrinate their children in a censored and inaccurate account of the world and history. Children need to know that this country didn’t just get to where we are now. Yes, they need to know about the struggle and the struggle heroes, but we shouldn’t “Hlaudi” it. Teach them everything. Teach them about the Zuma administration and how it goes against everything these heroes fought for.
SADTU has made it very clear that this proposal is an electioneering mechanism. They say: “In the eternal spirit of June 26, and the immortal freedom charter, SADTU whole-heartedly supports the ANC in all wards and municipalities in the coming municipal elections.” So this proposal is actually a statement about their position around the elections.
The Department of Education’s history curriculum says that history is a study of change and development over time. The study of history enables us to understand how past human actions affects the present and influences our future. It allows us to evaluate these events. So history is about learning how to think about the past, which affects the present in a disciplined way. History is a process of enquiry, therefore, it is about asking questions about the past – what happened, when did it happen, why did it happen?
The fact is, in matric, learners are studying things like the Cold War, Independent Africa, civil society protests 1950’s to 1990’s, civil resistance 1970’s to 1980’s, the coming of democracy in South Africa in coming to terms with the past and finally the end of the Cold War and a new global order 1989 to present, and that is obviously contemporary world history. This is all already in the curriculum. So the proposal from SADTU is nothing more than politics and point scoring.
So I’m not entirely sure what this call for curriculum changes to reflect the liberation struggle is, because if you look at the history curriculum, there’s already a focus on South African history from the 1600’s right to the present day. So it sounds to me like this union is raising a non-issue and highlighting this need for a change in an effort to score political points and suck up to the ruling party.
The very nature of history is that it’s always going to be contentious. There will always be people that argue that things happened one way and there will be people that argue it happened in another way. And if they’re going to analyse political leadership in the country, they should do so from the fifties until now. Where you place your emphasis is obviously what will be contentious because that can influence people. So I think it’s something that needs to be taken very, very seriously.
When teaching history, in particular, South African history, we need to proceed with caution. And of course, we need to teach our children to be critical thinkers.
Do you think we need to be selective about what we teach our children about the South African history of struggle, or should they be taught the whole story, warts and all?
For me, the focus should really be on teaching the ability to critically interpret a historical text or a historical analysis of a particular event. But the problem is you don’t have examples of that. When I was at school, it was just Jan van Reebiek and all that. Obviously, we did some international politics like the big wars and the Iranian revolution but that was pretty much what was taught in our history lessons.
I do think it’s important that we teach our history – all of it – or as much as you can fit into the curriculum; there’s a lot of history. And we need to ask: do we want people to be informed in an insular way – looking inwardly, or do you want them to have a sense of what’s happening on a global stage as well. Ideally, there should be a combination of both. But whatever is done, it should be looked at through the lens of how we critically evaluate history. And I think that one of the most important things to teach about history is that it’s written by the victors; the history books are written by the people who won the war.
The thing with this SADTU proposal is that it’s just pro-ANC. For me, it would be important to look at the history of the PAC and the Mass Democratic Movement. We should not confuse struggle history with ANC history. And the struggle was a mass democratic movement which involved the PAC, the UDM, and the unions, not just the ANC.
A number of different organisations across a range of different interest groups all acknowledged that apartheid is evil and we must get rid of it. The PAC’s Robert Sobukwe is actually considered to be the founder of the resistance movement against apartheid; then there’s Steve Bhiko from the Black Consciousness Movement; the Indian National Congress; and what about Black Sash, which was a movement of originally white women who protested against apartheid. It became a powerful movement on its own and still exists to this day. All these very important players should be included in the curriculum if struggle history is to be taught at schools.
What SADTU is saying is that they’re putting their might behind the ANC for the local government elections and they’re using history education as a vehicle to do this. I understand that the tripartite alliance between the ANC, SACP and Cosatu demands they do this, but that doesn’t make it right.
Contemporary South African history should be part of the curriculum. For example, what Thuli Madonsela did with the Public Protector’s Office should be part of the history we teach in schools in the absence of Political Science as a school subject.
So for me, SADTU’s proposal, for example, is not dissimilar to what that Westborough Baptist Church does in the US. They indoctrinate their children in a censored and inaccurate account of the world and history. Children need to know that this country didn’t just get to where we are now. Yes, they need to know about the struggle and the struggle heroes, but we shouldn’t “Hlaudi” it. Teach them everything. Teach them about the Zuma administration and how it goes against everything these heroes fought for.
SADTU has made it very clear that this proposal is an electioneering mechanism. They say: “In the eternal spirit of June 26, and the immortal freedom charter, SADTU whole-heartedly supports the ANC in all wards and municipalities in the coming municipal elections.” So this proposal is actually a statement about their position around the elections.
The Department of Education’s history curriculum says that history is a study of change and development over time. The study of history enables us to understand how past human actions affects the present and influences our future. It allows us to evaluate these events. So history is about learning how to think about the past, which affects the present in a disciplined way. History is a process of enquiry, therefore, it is about asking questions about the past – what happened, when did it happen, why did it happen?
The fact is, in matric, learners are studying things like the Cold War, Independent Africa, civil society protests 1950’s to 1990’s, civil resistance 1970’s to 1980’s, the coming of democracy in South Africa in coming to terms with the past and finally the end of the Cold War and a new global order 1989 to present, and that is obviously contemporary world history. This is all already in the curriculum. So the proposal from SADTU is nothing more than politics and point scoring.
So I’m not entirely sure what this call for curriculum changes to reflect the liberation struggle is, because if you look at the history curriculum, there’s already a focus on South African history from the 1600’s right to the present day. So it sounds to me like this union is raising a non-issue and highlighting this need for a change in an effort to score political points and suck up to the ruling party.
The very nature of history is that it’s always going to be contentious. There will always be people that argue that things happened one way and there will be people that argue it happened in another way. And if they’re going to analyse political leadership in the country, they should do so from the fifties until now. Where you place your emphasis is obviously what will be contentious because that can influence people. So I think it’s something that needs to be taken very, very seriously.
When teaching history, in particular, South African history, we need to proceed with caution. And of course, we need to teach our children to be critical thinkers.
Do you think we need to be selective about what we teach our children about the South African history of struggle, or should they be taught the whole story, warts and all?
You can email Terence Pillay at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter:@terencepillay1 and tweet him your thoughts.