• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The Sharpeville massacre.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The Sharpeville Massacre History Essay 2 Christina Whitfield 11AST Why has the event known as the Sharpeville Massacre produced such different interpretations? In February of 1960 the English Prime Minister went to South Africa to make what is now a famous speech, saying that his government did not approve of the Apartheid and said that they could no longer ignore the demands of the black people. (Apartheid= no rights for blacks, this was what the Nationalists wanted, these people were mostly Afrikaans) The Nationalist party did not approve of this speech, as they thought that change did not need to come, black people, in their eyes, were beneath them. Most of the Nationalists were white settlers, and they thought that they were superior to black natives. The Apartheid system was enough to satisfy them. But the Blacks thought very differently. For example, if you didn't have your passbook you could suffer from a month's imprisonment or face a hefty fine. This system was a very unfair way of life for the Blacks. ...read more.

Middle

For example, a Sharpeville resident called Mahabane claimed that when he was standing at his door, two white police men came and asked him for water, when he returned with the water they said to him that the shooting was going to start at 2 o'clock. But others such as Humphrey Tyler, a reporter for the Drum magazine wrote that the police said they 'were in desperate danger because the crowd was stoning them.' They were also armed with 'ferocious weapons.' Although Tyler does go on to say that he studied the photos carefully and that there was no evidence of them doing this. Also another source also tells us that the Africans began stoning police vehicles and described them as a mob. (The Times British Newspaper, March 22nd 1960) This, however may be propaganda, because it does not say how or where they got this information from. When they got to the police station the police were already at the door, says the source in the textbook. ...read more.

Conclusion

This must mean that they are the ones in danger. I think that there is crucial physical evidence missing from this because there was no actual witness's form both sides who agree on what happened. The two sides spent all their time trying to pin the blame on each other, rather than trying to come to some sort of agreement and to try and compromise with each other. I think that the police must have heard from a source that they were coming, they saw his as a perfect opportunity to show that the white people really were 'superior' to the Black's. The police were trying to make an example of the Black's who did wrong and didn't follow by their rules. They were trying to prevent change. But I do not think that we can pass judgement on what actually happened that day simply because there is no physical evidence, even photos can be unreliable, the people in source B could have simply been acting. Had there been actual physical evidence such as filming, we could have caught the Apartheid system red-handed and put a stop to the awful treatment which the Black native's of their own land received. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE USA 1941-80 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE USA 1941-80 essays

  1. History on Sharpeville

    We have some evidence suggesting that Source A, is a little more reliable due to Humphrey Tyler, because he was an observer of these events. 2. Study Sources C and D. Do these photographs prove that either Source A or Source B are wrong?

  2. What Happened At Sharpeville in March 1960?

    The evidence is fresh in his mind as this statement was made just days after the shooting so it is unlikely that he has forgotten or made up details. Though he was not actually an eyewitness he has had the advantage of speaking to many people who were.

  1. Study Sources A and B - How far does these two sources agree about ...

    In the crowd it is easy to distinguish the women, children and elders from the crowd. They are protesting, but not aggressively, just giving the 'thumbs up' sign which is a symbol of disapproval. (Protest). What I can't see, as source B described is the Africans swarming around the cars, or being aggressive in any way.

  2. What happened at Sharpeville On 21st March 1960 - Massacre or Self defence: source ...

    but they mostly disagree about how the blacks were acting and that they meant no trouble. Source A is the from the Blacks point of view and Source B is defending the police's actions. Study Sources C & D 2.

  1. What happened at Sharpeville on 21 March 1960? Massacre or self defence?

    The people with their thumbs up at the van could be interpreted as a welcoming sign to whoever was in the van, but as it says underneath, the thumbs up gesture is supposedly a sign of protest. In the background of Source D you can see that there are a lot of people as described in Source A.

  2. What Happened At Sharpeville On 21 March 1960- Massacre Or Self Defence?

    Although sources C and D support Source A and B to an extent there are some differences as well, for example in source B it says that there were a dozen Saracen cars and in source C it only shows one. However Sources C and D support Source A greatly.

  1. Why was the Sharpeville Massacre Produced such different interpretations?

    What we know happened on the day, we know that the white police started shooting at 2 o'clock and that there was no warning volley so the blacks had no chance of getting away. Also we know that 76 Africans died and that 186 were wounded.

  2. South Africa and Apartheid: Have the effects of apartheid disappeared?

    their passbooks, the ANC directly confronted the laws of the Union of South Africa. Although, many members of the ANC were arrested, it continued to grow in number. Leaders of the ANC including Nelson Mandela were especially unsafe. Oliver Tamber, one ANC leader had to go into exile.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work