The picture from Source C shows similarities with both previous Sources. It shows that the policemen were sitting on top of the Saracens, as it did in Source A; “Some kids waved to the policemen sitting on the Saracens.” This photograph also agrees with Source A as it portrays the crowds as being quite peaceful. It infers that the policemen were the dominant ones and had a higher status in the situation, as they were armed and sitting higher up than everybody else. However, this photograph also agrees with the report from Source B. It shows that there were a lot more demonstrators than policemen and suggests that it was the police who were being threatened. This corresponds to Source B when it says, “Police reinforcements were sent” to control the crowds.
The photograph from Source D also shows similarities between both of the previous textual Sources. It agrees with Source A when it portrays that the police did not alarm the demonstrators. This is shown when it says, “The Africans did not appear to be alarmed by the cars.” The photo also agrees with this Source when it shows the policemen inside their cars and Saracens.
Similarities between C and A are also shown because of the peaceful signs of protest. “The people were shouting the Pan Africanist slogan, Izwe Lethu (Our Land),” However, the police could have perceived this as threatening and intimidating behaviour.
However, there are also resemblances between the photo in Source D and the text in Source B. This is portrayed as the African protestors made it difficult for the cars to get through; “They had to force a way in using the Saracens. Once again the fact that there were a lot more demonstrators than policemen, also links the photo to Source B.
Both photographs show similarities and differences between both the written Sources. This is perhaps because it is impossible to perceive a truthful impression from the photos as they only show one scene at Sharpeville, at one moment in time. They could have also been taken for different purposes to show shots, which reflected personal opinions.
- How reliable is Source F as evidence of what happened at Sharpeville?
After looking at Source F in considerable detail, it could be described as being both reliable and unreliable, due to a number of factors.
The source was written by Ambrose Reeves, the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg. His strong religious character would be assumed to give a truthful opinion of what happened at Sharpeville. However, knowledge of the Anglican Church’s opposition to the Apartheid system would have meant that even the Bishop could have portrayed a biased point of view.
Certain details in Source F are perceived as solid facts as they could be easily verified for anything but the truth. This makes them very reliable and therefore, strong evidence in the Bishop’s favour.
They include the statement that “nearly all those who were later treated in hospital had been shot in the back” inferring that they were running away. “The fact that they were in separate wards of the hospital meant that they could not have talked together before making their statements to Lawyers.”
Many people, including the Government, may question the reliability of Source F because of the Bishop’s need for so many witnesses. They would consider the fact that the Bishop was searching too hard for evidence and that it must have been in order to increase the support for the Africans. All of the witnesses that are mentioned are those who were seriously injured and would do anything to put the blame onto the police. This is not a fair, nor reliable, way of collecting evidence as there are no opinions from the other side of the story.
The reliability of Source F could also be checked by comparing it with Source E as a method of verification. Both sources appear to share the same points of view about the shootings at Sharpeville. They agree that the demonstrators were not armed with “ferocious weapons” and that the police opened fire without provocation. However, the reliability of Source E could also be questioned, which prevents it from being able to verify any other source.
From the information, the reliability of Source F, or any other source, is inconclusive. There is not enough evidence to determine whether it is an accurate response to the shootings at Sharpeville.
- Which is more useful as evidence of what happened at Sharpeville, Source E or Source G?
Source E and Source G both show significant information as to what happened in Sharpeville on the morning of the 21st March 1960. However, it is difficult to prove which source is more useful as evidence.
Source E is extremely valuable because it was written by an eyewitness, somebody who was actually there for the whole day and saw the events as they occurred. The writer could have also picked up on things such as sounds, smells and tension, which could not have been experienced through film or reports.
He uses a more realistic approach in his account, as he describes people’s actions, expresses their opinions and uses comparisons. This is shown when it says, “He was swinging it around in a wide arc from his hip, as though he was fanning a movie camera.” This enables the readers to relate to the events and therefore, feel more assured by it. The textual source also gives a lot more information as well as adding a lot of extra detail, which aggress with the photo.
However, source E has a few features, which make it less useful as evidence. The writer happens to be a journalist, reporting for a South African magazine. This means that he is an expert in persuading people to take particular views.
He was also the only journalist in Sharpeville and therefore, knew that no there accounts could be published and argued against his. This would make him more likely to alter the truth in order to gain more support for his side.
Source G is also very important as proof of what happened at Sharpeville. It is photographic evidence and so can be used to validate other sources. The details can be compared to eyewitness accounts so that the false statements are discovered. The photographs cannot have been exaggerated or changed, which means that the shots are completely accurate.
However, like Source E, there are also features, which makes this photo less useful. For example, it was only taken at one moment in time and cannot represent everything that happened. The photograph could have also been taken from a specific angle to show the scene that the photographer wanted to be published. This means that it could have been a biased shot and therefore, not useful as evidence.
After analysing both of the sources, it becomes apparent that they are both useful in their own ways. Both sources show the events in Sharpeville from the same perspective but use different formats in the way that they are portrayed. This enables them both to successfully validate each other and therefore, means that both of them can be used as evidence.
- Why do you think Sources H and I disagree with Source F about the events at Sharpeville?
There is one significant reason why Source F is in great contrast with that of Sources H and I. They were all written shortly after the shootings at Sharpeville and all by people of a high status in South Africa at that point in time. However, the purposes of the authors were very different.
Source F was written by an Anglican Bishop who was opposed to the way the country was governed and the treatment against Blacks. Therefore, it was more likely that he would support the demonstrators in Sharpeville and express a view, which defended their innocence.
From the Source, it is clear to see that he persisted in his aim to gather information from eyewitnesses and those wounded at Sharpeville, to gain support. He made a statement a few days later “based on interviews under oath,” showing a contradiction to the Government’s claim “that the police station was besieged by 20,000 Africans.” He portrayed the blacks to be “good natured” in contrast with the Government and Police’s views. This resulted in them looking unprofessional and dishonest in their statements.
The purpose of the Bishop was to persuade people that the demonstrators did not have any violent intentions and that the police force acted without reason. He would have tried to convince the people of South Africa as well as the rest of the world that Apartheid caused such traumas, intending to show that it was not necessary to separate different racial sectors.
He would have wanted to prove to everybody that the political ideology of splitting families and friends apart could not possible have brought good to the country. His aim was also to influence people in thinking that the police and Government were untrustworthy and only interested in trying to put the blame on somebody else.
The Anglican Bishop also had the advantage that with such strong religious involvement more people were likely to believe his side of the story, which would hopefully gain worldwide support in order to overpower the Government in their decisions in the future.
In opposition to Source F, Source’s H and I were both written by people involved in the Apartheid Act, and so share a natural negative attitude towards the Black demonstrators. They would automatically defend their own side and put forward as many justifications as possible as to why the shootings occurred and why the events beforehand became so uncontrollable.
No matter what the police had done, Commander, Colonel Pienaar, would have had to make the demonstrators out to be violent and the police out to be a heroic force, who did whatever they could in the face of such danger.
The Prime Minister, Verwoerd, would have also tried to defend the police’s actions as well as the reputation of the Apartheid system. He would have tried to publicise his opinion of the Black demonstrators, in order to influence the rest of the world that the Blacks should not be allowed to mix with any other racial group but themselves.
Both police commander and Prime Minister would have used any tactic to avoid International criticism of the Government and the events in Sharpeville.
All of the Sources are undoubtedly written for different purposes to gain support for either the demonstrators or the police. The writers tried to justify their statements in different ways but neither proves that they were totally truthful.
6) Which interpretation is best supported by the evidence in these Sources and your knowledge of the period?
There are many different interpretations of what happened at Sharpeville on 21st March 1960. In Nelson Mandela’s autobiography, published in 1994, he stated that, “The demonstrators were peaceful and unarmed. The police opened fire first and continued to shoot at the crowd as they ran away in fear.” However, in contrast to this, a statement made for a book published in South Africa in 1988 said, “The police were under attack and only opened fire in self defence.”
Both statements and interpretations of events were supported by different groups of people. This caused a strong divide in African communities, mostly between white and black sectors.
Many people could have perceived Mandela’s interpretation as a biased opinion because he himself was a black man. From a speech, in Mandela’s Treason Trial, he said that he had “consistently preached a policy of race harmony,” which would have given him great need to support the demonstrators in Sharpeville. It would also have given him the chance to express, to the rest of the world, the unfair treatment that the Black’s were receiving in South Africa. However, this does not necessarily mean that he lied about the shootings, as there is a lot of evidence to correspond to his statement.
His opinion was shared by many other people, some of whom were actually at the scene of the shootings. In Source A, Tyler, a South African Journalist, commented on how the demonstrators were “grinning and cheerful.” They did not act in a violent or angered way, showing that they were more interested in a peaceful protest than causing trouble. The writer from this Source also talked of how “some kids waved to the policemen sitting on the Saracens.” There did not seem to be any acknowledgement of tension between the two sides, which makes it harder to accept that such a traumatic event occurred only a few hours after.
From Source B, readers become aware that the police had already used violent methods that morning. “One African was killed and another seriously wounded.” This shows that the force were not afraid to use their weapons, in any situation.
From the photograph taken in Source C, the police are shown to be in a high position on the Saracens. This symbolises their dominant characters and how they liked to express their power. The photograph in Source D portrays the positive attitude of the demonstrators and without any visible weapons, which the police claimed people were carrying.
In another extract from Tyler’s account, some of the police were accused of not taking the situation seriously enough. Tyler4 described a scene where a policeman “was swinging it (a gun) around in a wide arc from his hip as though he was panning a movie camera.” He was not shooting for any specific reason or at any target. Women and children were also mentioned in this source to be running away. The police did not try to save the lives of these people, even though most of them wee not capable of any harm. “When the shootings started, it did not stop.” The police wanted to ensure that everybody was dead, instead of just trying to calm the so-called ‘violent’ crowd down.
In complete contrast to this interpretation of events, there is also a large amount of evidence to support the opinion that, “the police were under attack and only opened fire in self defence.” The writer of this statement is unknown, however, it is likely to be a white person if they had been allowed to write a book on South Africa. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether it is a biased point of view or not.
In Source B, the reported said, “the police station was virtually besieged by thousands of Africans” and that the police had to “force a way in using the Saracens.” This implies that there was strong resistance and that the police were unable to cope with the aggressive protestors.
The photographs from both Source’s C and D also seem to paint a picture of overpowering protestors in contrast with a weak and helpless police force.
In Source E, the police claimed, “they were in desperate danger because the crowd was stoning them…the police have also said that the crowd was armed with ferocious weapons.” This implies that they were being very provocative and caused the shootings because of their irresponsible behaviour.
The police commander at Sharpeville, speaking in Source H, explained how, “The native mentality does not allow Africans to gather for peaceful demonstrations” and that “Hoards surrounded the police station.” He was one among many to share this opinion of the vast number of demonstrators and therefore, strengthened the case.
The last source from the collection was written by Dr Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of South Africa in 1960. He commented on how the “Africans demonstrated in an unsuitable manner “by entering people’s homes and forcibly removing the identity books.” Again, this established a view of the protestors as being violent and uncooperative, a stereotype, which they had had for many years previous to this.
After the acknowledgement of all Sources, it is extremely difficult to come to a definite response as to which interpretation is truthful. There is not enough evidence to prove that one statement is more reliable than the other and therefore, it is impossible to make an accurate decision.
