Heritage-based education a weapon in decoloniality

Gibson Mhaka
Zimpapers Politics Hub

FRANTZ Fanon’s seminal book, “Black Skin, White Masks” (1952), documents the psychoanalysis of the aftermaths of colonisation on the human psyche.

The text explores the psychology of colonisation in intricate detail, unpacking the rhetoric of dignity, desire, anger, resentment, inferiority, self-analysis and reflection, alongside the devastating psychic outcomes of racism and cultural domination.

At the centre of Fanon’s argument is the idea that colonialism does not merely conquer territory; it colonises the mind.

Through language, education and culture, inferiority complexes are cultivated among the colonised, who are made to believe that progress and civilisation are attainable only through the abandonment of their own identity.

Written in the context of French colonial rule in Algeria, Fanon’s work reveals the linguistic, social, cultural and psychological consequences of colonial domination.

The dominant colonial culture, he argues, forces the colonised to wear “white masks” for acceptance within a system designed to marginalise them.

Black people are compelled to suppress their identities and assimilate into the language and culture of the coloniser, often at the expense of their own humanity.

Language, in Fanon’s analysis, becomes both a weapon and a battlefield.

More than seven decades later, Fanon’s arguments still resonate profoundly across the post-colonial world, including in Zimbabwe, where debates around language, curriculum and cultural identity have resurfaced following the Government’s recent concern over the neglect of indigenous languages in some private and trust schools.

The issue transcends classroom instruction. It speaks directly to the unfinished struggle against colonialism, the enduring structures, attitudes and systems of colonial domination that survive long after the lowering of colonial flags.

Neo-colonialism persists when African societies continue to valorise foreign languages, foreign knowledge systems and foreign cultural references above their own.

It is against this backdrop that the Government’s decision to make the Heritage-Based Curriculum (HBC) mandatory in all schools from 2027 assumes profound national significance.

The move is not merely administrative; it is ideological, cultural and civilisational.

Primary and Secondary Education Minister Torerayi Moyo recently expressed concern that some Association of Trust Schools (ATS) institutions have sidelined indigenous languages and technical subjects in favour of foreign-oriented curricula.

“Our indigenous languages, which include Shona, Ndebele, Kalanga, Shangani and Tonga, are not taught in many ATS institutions.

They are now learning French, Chinese and no longer learning our local languages,” said Minister Moyo.

His remarks strike at the heart of a painful contradiction in post-independence Zimbabwe: that decades after political liberation, sections of society still unconsciously associate prestige, intelligence and social mobility with foreign languages and foreign educational systems.

This is precisely the psychological condition Fanon warned about.

Language is far more than a communication tool. It is a defining marker of ethnic identity, carrying within it the memory of a people, their worldview, customs, philosophy and collective consciousness.

Through language, communities transmit folklore, values, spirituality, history and indigenous knowledge systems from one generation to another. When a people lose their language, they risk losing their cultural soul.

The growing preference for foreign languages at the expense of indigenous ones reflects the subtle but enduring legacy of colonial mentality.

In many elite educational spaces, fluency in English, French or other foreign languages is often unconsciously treated as a marker of sophistication, while indigenous languages are relegated to the margins. Such attitudes reinforce a dangerous hierarchy of cultures where African identity is perceived as secondary or inferior.

This explains why the Government’s intervention must be understood as a noble and necessary act of ‘Decoloniality’.

Decoloniality seeks to dismantle the inherited systems of colonial domination embedded within knowledge production, culture and education.

It rejects the notion that Western epistemologies are universal while African knowledge systems are primitive or irrelevant.

In education, decoloniality demands the restoration of African agency, memory and cultural confidence.

Zimbabwe’s Heritage-Based Curriculum represents precisely such an attempt.

By focusing on local history, indigenous languages, culture, heritage and technical skills, the curriculum seeks to align education with national development aspirations and local realities rather than external validation. It is an educational philosophy rooted in the understanding that sustainable national development cannot emerge from alienated minds detached from their own society.

Minister Moyo underscored this connection between education and national vision.

“It is important to offer the Heritage-Based Curriculum because it is aligned with the national vision of the President, Vision 2030.”

Colonial education systems historically trained Africans to serve colonial administrations rather than transform their societies.

This is why celebrated African scholars such as Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o have consistently argued that language lies at the centre of cultural liberation.

Ngũgĩ famously rejected English as his primary literary medium, insisting that African languages are essential vehicles for African memory and consciousness.

Similarly, Fanon recognised that mastery of the coloniser’s language often came with psychological consequences.

The colonised subject internalised the idea that proximity to the European language and culture conferred superiority.

In Zimbabwe today, the dominance of foreign curricula in some elite schools risks reproducing this very condition.

The concern is not necessarily with the teaching of international languages or curricula themselves. Globalisation demands international engagement, and multilingualism remains valuable in diplomacy, trade and global interaction. The problem emerges when foreign systems become substitutes for national identity rather than complements to it. Government has clarified that international curricula such as Cambridge and the International Baccalaureate have not been banned.

“We have not banned international examinations like Cambridge or Baccalaureate,” Minister Moyo explained. However, if schools want to offer two curricula — HBC and Cambridge — they must first register for ZIMSEC and then later on register for Cambridge.”

This balanced approach reflects strategic pragmatism rather than isolationism. Zimbabwe is not rejecting global engagement; rather, it is insisting that engagement with the world must not come at the expense of national identity and heritage.

The challenge posed by globalisation is that dominant world languages increasingly marginalise indigenous ones.

Across the world, many minority languages face extinction as younger generations migrate toward globally dominant linguistic systems perceived to offer better economic opportunities.

Yet every language lost represents an irreplaceable erosion of human civilisation.

Languages such as Shona, Ndebele, Kalanga, Tonga and Shangani are not merely vernacular dialects; they are repositories of indigenous science, philosophy, oral literature, environmental knowledge and collective memory accumulated over centuries.

Protecting them is therefore not an act of nostalgia, but an act of cultural survival.

The Heritage-Based Curriculum’s emphasis on technical and vocational education also challenges another colonial residue — the historic separation between intellectual and manual labour.

Colonial education often privileged white-collar professions while devaluing practical and industrial skills among Africans.

By integrating vocational training into mainstream education, the HBC attempts to produce self-reliant citizens capable of driving industrialisation and innovation within local contexts.

Ultimately, the debate around language and curriculum in Zimbabwe is fundamentally about identity, sovereignty and the unfinished business of decolonisation.

Political independence without epistemic and cultural liberation leaves nations trapped within invisible colonial structures.

Fanon understood this danger long ago when he warned that colonised societies could inherit the symbols of independence while remaining psychologically imprisoned by colonial value systems.

Zimbabwe’s renewed emphasis on indigenous languages and heritage-based education represents an attempt to break those invisible chains.

Nations that abandon their languages and heritage in pursuit of foreign validation risk becoming culturally uprooted and historically disoriented.

The Government’s intervention is therefore not a retreat from modernity, but a reassertion of cultural confidence.

For beyond the Cambridge gate lies a deeper struggle — the struggle for the African mind, the African voice and the African future.