Africanisation and Nomenclature in curriculation

In our research how to Africanise the United Nations curriculum for peacekeeping correspondence
instruction for African militia, my co-researcher, Dr Pierre de Montfort was confronted by academe abroad
that the courses are internationally accredited. Why Africanise it? He proved that the nomenclature,
acronyms and definitions of warfare in Africa differ in meaning from that of the UN versions. Firstly, Africa is
dominated by Arab, Franco phone, Lucophone and British lingua francas. Historically the French, the
Portuguese and the British colonial military traditions further differentiated into customised—read
Africanised—uses for training soldiers. Also in southern Africa, the concepts of terrorists changed into
freedom fighters, while offensive as well as defensive terminology is now transformed into peacekeeping
operations. Many examples could be quoted; however, the main point to remember is that the African
languages do not poses the same technological terminology as the United Nations concepts.
Subsequently, curriculation in the true African meaning at our university will have to commence with the
correct translation of the African idiom into the technological terminology of universities of technology. Atrue
and meaningful reflection of the curriculum will have also to take anthropology into account. It is easy to
define it as a holistic approach, but not to specify the diverse points of conflict such as religion, tradition,
language, economical, historical, ethical, judicial, biological and geographical aspects. Otherwise the whole
exercise will be in vain. Let alone political interferences in higher education. In the last sense of the word,
some universities in South Africa are waiting for the new government in 2010 before they will adapt their
curriculation processes. Most certainly not an easy task ahead.