In Source A in mentions Saracens, “Three Saracen armoured cars.” There is a Saracen in Source C. Also in says that in source A there were two soldiers sitting on top of the Saracen, “policemen sitting on top of the Saracen” and as you can see in Source C there are soldiers witting there. And also in Source C it show there were a large crowd of people there which were protesting. And this is mentioned in Source A, “Many people.” Also in source D you can also see the large crowd of people which are there. Looking at sources C and D you really cannot tell how threatening the crowd is. As you cant see the people faces in source C. But to me in Source C they do not really seem to me to be threatening as there are two policemen on top of a Saracen and if they were causing trouble then they would be standing up not just sitting down on a Saracen doing nothing. Also it is really kind of the same because you cannot see the faces of the people of the crowd. And there is also no sound so you cannot tell how the crowd is sounding in both the Sources C and D.
Also Source C could not back Source A because firstly in Source A it says there are three Saracens, “Three Saracens.” But as you can see from the picture there is only one Saracen in that picture. In Source A it says that all the police were inside the Saracens, “The policemen were by now all inside the Saracens.” But when you look at Source C the policemen are all outside the Saracen, not inside as it says.
3)
Source F is not a Primary source as it was done after the actual event. It is a Secondary source because it was done after. Also when people speak about what happened a few days later some of them might have got hurt a lot and some of them may have just forgotten. So you may not be able to remember every single thing that happened. Also the people who were interviewed in says that they were under oath. Even if they were under oath they would not go and say that it was there fault. They would not say that they had weapons they would rather say that is was the polices fault. They would rather blame someone else. And also it will show how bad the government are there, so they could get their point across on what they were protesting about. Also the bishop Ambrose Reeves is very bias. Because the bishop Ambrose Reeves is an Anglican Bishop Of Johannesburg, and he is Anti-Apartheid. So he would rather blame the police. So that the Apartheid laws would be abolished. And that’s what he would like to happen. And this was probably one of motives that he could show to everyone how the government were treating them. And Secondly that they might be able to get the apartheid laws abolished, which was their main aim in the protests. Also the bishop is not very smart. Because when you read his statement it says, “Police did not attempt to give a warning before opening fire.” Then almost straight away it says, “The only warning came from an African Police man.” He says one thing then straight away he contradicts himself. It is very stupid. Also even if they did not get any kind of warning, then how come most of the people who were being treated with injuries had been shot in the back. Not in the front but the back. And the majority of them must have been turned around for some reason. And the most logical reason that I can think of is that they must have been running away from something and that was probably because they heard that they were going to shoot. But why would the Bishop say this? Is it because he probably really hated the Government and wanted everyone to think bad of them.
Also in Source E which I believe is more reliable because the reporter was not really biased to any one side. Also that the Bishop he contradicts himself whereas the Reporter Tyler does not he just tells it how it is.
In Source F in tells us how there was a line of police men and fired altogether. “The police lined up against the Police Station and fired altogether.” Where in Source E it tells us how there was only one policeman on top of a Saracen who was shooting at the crowd. “One policeman was standing on top of a Saracen.”
In Source F it tells how there was a warning by an African Policeman. “The only warning came fro man African Policeman.” But in Source E Tylers account of what happened he heard no warning for the crowd to go. “I heard no warning to the crowd to disperse. Also in Source F it says that that the statements agreed that no one where not armed even with sticks, how can he make such statements. Because the only way he can be sure if no one had any weapons or were doing anything that they were should not have doing is that if he talked to everyone person who was there and he could not really do that as some of the people died.
4)
Sources E and G are both primary sources which mean they were present at the time of the event. Source E is a written source from the account from the only journalist who was there at the time Humphrey Tyler. This source tells us of how what happened in words. It gives a very good picture of what was happening at that time. And it gives you lots of different types of information. Unlike Source G which is a picture. And as I have already said that pictures do not tell you what happened before that event. Unlike source E which has an account in which you will be able to tell more than just one picture. Source E has much more information for you to use. So there would be many things in which you could use and determine. The links that are between Sources E and G is that that people are fleeing from where they are. But this is the problem with the picture as you cannot see the peoples faces and expressions on their faces. Both of the sources are valuable as it backs up what Tyler was saying and it also gives us some sort of a picture for us to think about when we use the other information given to us in Source E.
5)
In sources H and I they are both official sources. Source H is from Colonel Piernaar who was the police commander at Sharpeville. And Source I is from Dr Verwoerd who was the Prime Minister at the time. Source H is a very honest by the Colonel who is just basically saying that they deserved it because they were throwing stones at his car. And also he doesn’t believe that when Africans gather it will be peaceful it will just be violence. Also source I is saying how the Africans crowd grew to 20000 people when Source I claims that there were only 4000 people. Source I tells of how telephones wires were cut and disturbances occurred. But the Prime minister does not go into details about this just says it. And obviously sources I and H are going to say they deserved it because they are for apartheid. And they don’t want the Africans to have any freedom. Prime Minister Verwoerd would obviously be against it as he was so very for Apartheid. The one reason they wanted apartheid was they wanted to keep the Afrikaner race pure. Also the Afrikans knew that they were in a minority, so they had to establish themselves and make the Natives scared of them so they would listen and do what they say. To keep the Africans in line they got the Apartheid laws. And the Mastermind behind the governments policy on apartheid was Dr Verwoerd. And the Prime Minister at the time Dr Verwoerd. And in Source I he says how bad the Black people were wouldn’t he say that anyway if it wasn’t true? He would say that to make everyone believe him and be on his side on why the police shot at them. And it would be a good way of showing why he was using apartheid laws, as many other countries didn’t like apartheid. And also Dr Verwoerd was a very smart person because he made it seem to everyone that the apartheid laws were a good thing for black people and would help them. Source F disagrees with H and I because Source F is by Anglican Bishop Ambrose Reeves. And the Anglican Church who is against apartheid laws and is against apartheid. So wouldn’t the bishop obviously want to make the Government seem bad and make it look like it was their fault. He wouldn’t like to blame it on the blacks because that will show that they were causing trouble.
The Sources F and I are all secondary sources none of them were there at the time of the event so they really don’t know what actually happened they are just getting their information from different people who are most probably more likely to lie because they would rather blame each other than themselves. But unlike F and I source H is a primary source as the colonel was actually there at the event.
6)
“The Demonstrators were Controlled and Unarmed. The police opened fire on the crowd and continued to shoot as they turned and ran in fear. It was a massacre.”
This is Nelson Mandela in his autobiography.
Some of what Nelson Mandela said Is backed up. Firstly it says, “Demonstrators were Controlled and Unarmed.” This is backed up by Source F as it also says, “The crowd was good natured and unarmed.”
Secondly is says, “The police opened fire,” this is backed up by Source E which says, “We heard a chatter of a machine gun.” And also is backed up by Source F, which says, “The police acted together in raising their weapons, aiming and firing.”
Most of what Nelson Mandela said is backed up The Bishop Ambrose Reeves. This is obviously that they are backing each other up. They are both Anti-apartheid. And they don’t like the government and would rather blame it on them. Mandela is obviously bias because he is anti-apartheid so what he has written may not be the whole truth. He probably just wants more people to be on his side to help in his people. The only good source which backs up Nelson Mandela is from Tyler but it really only is one thing. And what Tyler backs Mandela about is about the shooting which the police shot first. And Tyler could not really see if the police shot first as he was as the back.
“The police were under attack and opened fire in self-defence.”
From a book published in South Africa In 1988
Some of this is backed up by the different sources. Firstly is says, “Police were under attack.” Source B backs this up by saying, “the police station was virtually besieged.”
Also source H backs it up by saying, “My car was struck by a stone,” This is meant that the colonel thought the crowd would be dangerous and that they were trying to cause trouble.
Also it says how, “Opened fire in self-defence,” this is also backed up by Source I by saying, “The police had to open fire,” showing that both sources do agree.
All of the sources that do agree with The statement made are all people who are for apartheid. And they all like have the same sort of story. In source B it is from an English Newspaper which the government of South Africa probably changed and then gave it to the newspapers. Also Source H which is by colonel Piernaar who is the Police commander at Sharpeville wouldn’t blame himself. And Also source I which is by Dr Verwoerd. Who would obvious be bias towards his apartheid policies and blame it on the other side. And one big main point is that The statement made is that it put before apartheid laws were abolished. So basically everything in the text books and everything else would have been changed so that it would be that black people who look like the people in the wrong.
In both of these statements there is probably some truth in each of them but you cannot really find out because everyone is backing up their own side there is not anyone who is in the middle who would be able to give a fair own opinion.
To Sum up what Nelson Mandela wrote he thinks it is a Massacre.
But the other statement they claim it was self-defence.
You will never really be able to tell what exactly happened on The morning of the 21st March. Because everyone the two opposite sides are saying completely different things. Maybe the police did over react they might have thought that black people were savages and had weapons on them. And that a few stones thrown on police would show that the crowd were really dangerous.
