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

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Coursework- What happened at Sharpeville On 21st March 1960-Massacre or Self defence Study Sources A & B 1. How far do these sources agree about what happened in Sharpeville on the morning of 21st March? Use the sources to explain your answer. Source A is an extract from Humphrey Tyler early in the day at Sharpeville. He was the only journalist to witness the events at Sharpeville. Source B is a report by an English paper on the 22nd March 1960. Both of the sources agree and disagree about the events at Sharpeville. They both agree that the blacks were there to protest peacefully and just chanting and that there were reinforcements for the whites in the form of the Saracens. The two sources also disagree, they disagree that the black were being violent and abusive they also disagree about ............ Source A is all about the blacks and how they were acting. They were acting peacefully and cheerfully. There was a peaceful atmosphere and you could tell this when Tyler writes "Some kids waved to the policeman sitting on the Saracens, and the two of them waved back". The also says to me that was peaceful because Tyler described the day as a "Sunday outing". ...read more.

Middle

The Source is also reliable because the Bishop is a religious man and it would be seen as a sin if he had lied. The statement " Nearly all of those who were later treated in hospital had been shot in the back"; this says to me that the blacks were running away. The fact that the people who were running away can be checked because if they were running away they would have been shot in the back. This means that the Source is reliable because the facts can be checked over and it is visual evidence that means that people cant make it up, it is hard evidence. Another fact that makes the Source reliable is that the Bishop is white and you would expect him to take the white point of view and defend the whites. However, although there were a lot of factors that meant that the Source was reliable, there are also factors that make the Source unreliable. For instance the fact that the Bishop wasn't there and doesn't know what went on and is just taking the blacks word for it, but the blacks want to abolish the apartheid and so even though they haven't talked to each other they know what every one else will say. ...read more.

Conclusion

For example Source H is the view of the Colonel Pioneer the leader of the defences e.g. the police, and Source I is the view of Dr Veorwood who was the Prime Minister of South Africa. Veorwood is the person who instigated the idea for apartheid. Veorwood basically says that it was the blacks that who were at fault because there were so many of them who were acting violently and provocatively. An example of this is when Veorwood says, "the demonstrators were entering peoples homes and forcibly removing their identity books". This is the only Source that it says anything like this in so how can it be believable when you have someone that is strongly for apartheid, and who wasn't even there when someone like Tyler was there and isn't biased. Tyler doesn't mention anything about this matter so this is why Veorwood's account isn't reliable. Veorwood is just exaggerating the truth to get people on his side. An example of this is when he says, "The crowds grew until there was some 20,000 people there", when we know from Tyler's report that there was only just 4,000 people there. Source H was a speech from Colonel Pioneer also showed the white point of view and the same as Veorwood's. You can tell this because he comments on ...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. Why was the Sharpeville Massacre Produced such different interpretations?

    The government wanted to make sure that they whites, blacks and coloureds lived separately, so pass laws were set up. But there was a problem; you could not judge a person race just by looking at their colour. So people needed to carry something to prove who they were and

  2. Study Source A, The Long Shadow of little Rock . What can you learn ...

    Following from 1962 to 1963 there was a huge change of events; this was because the world wasn't in a nuclear threat any longer. John F Kennedy had been assassinated and Lyndon Johnson was the new president. The main problem changed to racial problems.

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

    In source B it says "Saracen cars" were present. It also mentions that there was a police station, "Police station was virtually besieged". Source D supports source B because it shows a car going through the crowd and in source B it mentions a "motor car from the council" had to force its way through.

  2. Civil rights - source related study.

    and dire, the opportunities they were given were nowhere near as good as those of whites especially in education. 2. Study sources A, B and C. Does the evidence of sources B and C support Elizabeth Eckfords account of events at little rock (source A)?

  1. The Sharpeville massacre.

    There are several versions of the Events of that day which is why it has never gone to court and nobody has been prosecuted. What is known is that, at dawn local leaders went from door-to-door, handing out leaflets requesting of the people not to go to work that day.

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

    Source A mentions 'kids waving to the policemen' and the policemen waving back. This atmosphere is nothing like the atmosphere described in Source B which states that the atmosphere is hostile and violent. Source A says that there were three Saracen armoured cars but Source B disagrees with this and says that there were 'a dozen Saracens on call'.

  1. History on Sharpeville

    The source also says that the Africans were 'grinning and cheerful', utterly opposing Source B, which says that the Africans 'besieged' the police cars, implying a wild attitude and unfriendly intent there is a contrast there because in Source A, there is a carnival atmosphere and in Source B there is a unpleasant atmosphere.

  2. Apartheid - source related study.

    The Passbook Act was where blacks had to carry passes with them wherever they go. The passbook consisted of the person's personal information such as their name and address, and if they didn't have their passbooks with them they would be arrested.

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