After the National Party came to power in 1948 large scale changes were implemented to the educational system. These changes included the introduction of mass education and the enforcement of Apartheid in all spheres of life, including schooling. 1 Most importantly, in the context of this paper, the National Party Government took firm control of History education and, until 1994 with the end of pigmentocracy, History school textbooks were written, curricula were devised, and the subject was generally taught from an Afrikaner-Nationalist perspective which, in crude terms, portrayed whites in general, and Afrikaners in particular, as heroes and people of colour as villains. Likewise History at certain universities was dominated by the agenda of the state. 2 In Orwellian terms it was a case of he who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future. Consequently all South African learners were taught a History in which the struggles of the Afrikaner against both the Africans and the British were glorified. In turn the History of people of colour was portrayed as not so glorious. This changed after 1994 when History education, like all other aspects of South African society, was transformed. The new curricula envisaged, and eventually implemented, was a paradigm shift away, both in terms of content and methodology, compared to the Afrikaner Nationalistorientated curricula of the past. 3 As a result, Afrikaners in a reversal from their previous position of dominance and power, found themselves on the fringes of History. This did not go unnoticed and recently a lively debate took place between Professor Fransjohan Pretorius of the University of Pretoria and Doctor Fanie du Toit the project manager of the Turning Points History series in the pages of the Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, Rapport. Pretorius felt Afrikaners and their History were being marginalised, while Du Toit denied these accusations and argued for