This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

The Minister’s proposed overhaul of the school history curriculum is drawing growing concern, with critics warning that it risks narrowing pupils’ understanding of the modern world while introducing an overtly ideological, nationalist, and anti-Western tone.

At the centre of the changes is a clear shift in emphasis. The draft curriculum moves toward what it describes as an African-centred approach, shaped by the “decolonisation of knowledge” and an effort to “de-centre” Europe and the global North in how history is taught.

The current syllabus exposes learners to a wide range of global developments that shaped the modern world. These include the French Revolution, communism in Russia, capitalism in the United States, the Cold War, and the emergence of the post-1990 global order.

Under the proposed changes, much of that material is removed or reduced due to being considered too Eurocentric and capitalist-centric.

In their place, the syllabus expands content on ancient African civilisations, archaeology, oral traditions, and precolonial societies, alongside woke thematic areas on race, gender, and inequality.

The issue is not that African history is being expanded, but rather that this is being used as a fig leaf to conceal a turn toward a more ideological and black-nationalist agenda.

The result is a curriculum that risks becoming more inward-looking at a time when the world is becoming more interconnected. Without structured exposure to the ideas and conflicts that shaped the modern era, pupils may struggle to place South Africa within a global context.

There are also concerns about the framing of parts of the new syllabus. The documents explicitly position the curriculum within a project of decolonising history in order to advance grievance politics whilst promoting themes of race and inequality.

In some cases, the wording guides learners towards particular ideological conclusions. One example asks learners to consider, in developing an appropriate “historical consciousness”, whether South Africa has achieved political freedom while “economic inequalities have remained unchanged and the struggle continues for economic freedom”.

[Economic inequalities have not remained unchanged. South African living standards have improved significantly since 1994, the size of the middle class has more than doubled, and GDP has multiplied, even though counter-productive labour, power, and empowerment policies have helped to sustain a high rate of unemployment.]

That is not framed as a neutral question, but rather as a statement designed to provoke grievance politics and a revolutionary mindset, set against South Africa’s market economy and democratic institutions.

Radical activists argue the curriculum corrects historical imbalances and aligns with international best practice by emphasising anti-Western and anti-capitalist struggle.

The concern is therefore not that the curriculum is more African in focus. It is that it narrows the scope of understanding young people will have of the world, making them less able to compete in it, while seeking to provoke anger and rebellion against the political and economic institutions that support South Africa’s democracy. This could prove highly destabilising given the country’s high rate of youth unemployment.

The Common Sense has approached the Minister for comment which will be added once received.