The sources also differ in the amount of Saracens that were at the event. Source A states there were 3 cars full of Saracens, which could have been up to 15 or maybe less depending how many were in each car/tank. Source B says there were a dozen Saracens. Neither sources give a definite amount to how many there were. Source A then states that the Black South Africans were not alarmed by the cars, and that some looked interested while others just grinned. Source B disagrees with this by quoting “trouble was expected” then he also goes on to say about the Black Africans that were killed and injured. This is not a happy atmosphere like Source A, there is more fear and disturbance in B. Source A gives an impression that the crowd would not cause trouble, where as Source B hints there was trouble.
Both the sources fail to agree on how people are forcing their way in. Source A describes a peaceful crowd gathering outside the police station. Source B describes shouting crowds causing riots. The sources disagree on how the people were reacting and the amount of people who were present at the event.
2)
To a certain extent I agree that Sources C and D represent the situation of Source A.
Source C was taken on the morning of the 21st March. The photographs show tanks of police driving through the crowds at Sharpville. The police are pointing guns. Photograph C supports Source A because it shows there were Saracens there. Source C shows the crowd isn’t threatening. Source C supports A, because it describes the crowds in a similar way. Both Sources say the police have rifles on them.
Source C disagrees by showing 1 Saracen, so the amounts of Saracens are disagreeable. Source C is probamatic. The photo could have been taken so early that not all the Saracens were there. Source C show the police are not being violent.
Source D doesn’t support A as much as C does. Source D shows there were a lot of protesters there. The crowd are putting their thumbs up, this is to show a non-violent protest, and that they have no weapons . The photo was taken around midday; this was around the same time Source A was written. It agrees with Source A, but not as much, because it describes a different crowd, and shows the police are not carrying weapons and there is no sign of protest which disagrees with the information written in Source A.
Source C and D cannot support A because they’re photographs. There is not a definite time of when they were taken, so they can’t back up all the information.
3)
Source F is a statement made by an Anglican White Bishop. He is putting his job on the line, so he is not going to lie because he wants the support of the community. Source F is secondary evidence based on primary eveidence. It is based on other relevant material. The information has also come from other Europeans. The Bishop has said the information under oath, so it is reliable because it is very un-likely he will lie because of his position as an Anglican Bishop. The other Europeans say there were 4, 000 protestors, when the police say they were attacked at the station by 20,000 Africans. All of the protestors were cross-examined and locked into separate rooms. This meant they could not alter their stories to support what they were protesting for, this makes the source more reliable. The Bishop and Europeans say the Africans weren’t armed and they were a good natured crowd. This agrees with Source A. This source is also more reliable because hospitals keep medical records and they can be checked. People were shot in the back by the police, to be shot in the back they must have been running away from them. This can be proved by the records. The Bishop is supporting the ANC, this means he is against the PAC. I think this source is reliable because the bishop is in a position where he can’t or shouldn’t lie, and the Europeans haven’t had time to lie because they were kept separate. Also what they say can be backed up by medical records.
4)
Source E is useful because again Humphrey Tyler (Journalist) was at the event. However he was the only journalist there, so this means he could exaggerate or lie about what he saw to make himself more popular and to make the paper sell more. He is biased. He is only saying his opinions, and he doesn’t know what the demonstrators are thinking, even though he is saying what the people are thinking. He describes a boy pulling his coat over himself to stop the bullets from hitting him, but the journalist doesn’t know what the boy was thinking or his intentions because he hasn’t spoken to him. The journalist is making assumptions without knowing. He has got no truth in what he says, because he says the police did not stop until there was nothing left alive, even though there were survivors, and this can be checked up on by records. He also contradicts himself when he makes this statement because he writes earlier that people were left dead or wounded, and after he tells us there were no survivors. This makes the source less reliable. The fact that this source is primary and that Tyler was there, makes the source more reliable, even though it’s not truthful. The journalist agrees that there was a photographer and that people were shot in the back, so this is some evidence. Source G is a photograph. The photograph shows people running away. This is evidence because as there were people shot in the back, it must have meant they were running. This source is reliable because it has no opinion with it. The photograph can’t be influenced, and when you look at it, you get your own opinion of what happened.
