- Study Sources E and F
How reliable is Source F as evidence of what happened at Sharpeville? Use the sources to explain your answer.
Source F is contradicting the government’s version of the ‘true’ events at Sharpeville on March the 21st. It is written by the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves. In some ways the evidence given by the Archbishop could be seen as very reliable although there are some reasons why it might not be so. The reasons for it being reliable are that he is a Bishop, a man of God and so presumably truthful. The Anglican Church was strongly against the Apartheid system, although there were other churches on South Africa which were not.
He has witness statements which all tell the same story. There was also no way that the witnesses could have planned what they were going to say as they were in separate wards and could not have talked. The injuries that the protesters got also line up with the account of Tyler in Source E. Tyler states that there was no warning and the protesters were shot as they fled. The fact that all the injured had been shot in the back backs up this statement. This Source is also supported by Sources A, C and E. Source E also shows how the Government claims cannot be trusted, as the Government claimed they ‘ were in desperate danger because the protestors were stoning them’ although only three policeman were reported as having been hit by stones. Unlike the Government who only have themselves and the officers as witnesses, who obviously would not blame themselves (although neither would the protesters) Ambrose had many witnesses, including Europeans who had no need to lie, who all said the crowd was no more than 4000. This is only a fifth of the amount the police claimed to be present.
Although there are many factors that support Ambrose’s account there is one reason that doubts the reliability of the evidence. This is that Ambrose Reeves is a Bishop, and the Church was openly against the Apartheid. Other than this Source F can be presumed very reliable evidence.
- Study Sources E and G
Which is more useful as evidence of what happened at Sharpeville? Use the Sources to explain your answer.
Neither Source E nor Source G is more useful as they both support each other; in fact they make each other more useful as they both portray the same image. They both support each other as the picture in Source G is showing what the writing in Source E is describing.
In Source E it says that there was no warning and the crowd were running. In the picture it shows the crowd running. In the picture you can also see that most of the protesters had their backs to the police, this connects this Source to Source F as well which says how the protestors were all shot in the back.
In fact Source A, Source C, Source E, Source F and Source G all support each other about the events that occurred at Sharpeville. In Source G you can also see a person carrying an injured person, and you can see that the protestors were not being threatening as they were all running away. Although even on there own they provide useful information, but together they are much more useful as the link in with each other.
- Study Sources F,H and I
Why do you think Sources H and I disagree with Source F about the events at Sharpeville. Use the Sources and your knowledge to explain your answer.
Sources H and I are on opposite sides of the argument about the true events and reasons for Sharpeville.
Sources H was written by the police commander at Sharpeville, who isn’t going to blame himself. He would also want to protect his police force and keep them from being prosecuted.
Source I is written by the Prime Minister of South Africa who also would not want to be seen as responsible. He would also want to protect the Apartheid from the scrutiny of the world as it was the first time the system had been shown in a bad light, and this time the whole world was judging it as well as him.
Both the Prime Minister and the police commander are for the Apartheid system and so would want to justify there actions, so not to change peoples mind about the Apartheid. They would want to defend the Apartheid system and keep up the support for it. As if the people of South Africa think the leaders of the Apartheid system are not good leaders they will be more likely to oppose the system. Source F is written by a Bishop and so he should tell the truth as it is part of his religion. Source F is much more likely to be true because of this and that there is a lot more evidence agreeing that the protesters were being peaceful and the police were in the wrong. The Church is also openly against the Apartheid system and so the Police Commander and the Prime Minister of South Africa would have to oppose him.
6)
Altogether there are 5 sources that support statement A and 4 that support statement B. Sources A, C, E and G all support statement A, and sources B, H, I and D support statement B. Although the reliability of the sources supporting statement B can be questioned. This is because some were written by people who were likely to lie to cover for there mistakes.
Source H was written by the police commander who is not going to say it was his fault and he also has to support the Apartheid system.
Source I was written by the Prime Minister of South Africa who also supports the Apartheid system and also wont want to admit fault. He could never have been respected if he admitted to the people of South Africa, the people he was supposed to work in the best interests of, that the police had made a mistake and innocent people had died because of it. He had to back up the police as they were under his control and they needed to support each other.
The only sources that support statement are sources D and B although B has no reason to lie as it is in an English newspaper, it is unclear where they got there information from and so it could have been from unreliable sources that may have been bias. It also mentioned a council car being ruined, although there was no other evidence to support that. Source D is a photograph which was taken at midday on the 21st of March; it was later than the first sources and shows the crowd in a more violent light although that is the only evidence portraying them this way.
In source I the prime minister says there were about 20,000 Africans there, there is no other evidence to suggest this. You could Sources C and D that there could not have been that many. The police also claimed that the crowd was armed with ‘ferocious weapons’ there was also so evidence to support this. In fact in source E which was written by a person who was actually there on the day it says that after studying the photo of the scene the only so called ferocious weapons to be seen were shoes hats and bicycles.
The sources that support statement A are much more reliable. These sources are Sources A, C, E, F and G.
Source A is written by a person who was actually there in Sharpeville at the time of the shootings. He was also the only journalist to be present at Sharpeville on that day. He showed the crowd as being in a peaceful manner and was supported by the other sources. In fact Sources A, C, E, F and G all supported each other.
Source C supports Source A. It is showing the crowds in a peaceful way they are not being threatening and there are certainly not 20,000 people there as claimed by the police commander.
Source E was written by the same person as in source A. He was actually there and witnessed the events. Although he had a reason to lie as he opposed the Apartheid system, he had many people, in fact every witness from Sharpeville backed up his evidence. Including two photos from the day one taken at the time of the shooting which showed the people running away, certainly not in a threatening way, they are all shown running for there lives. This was also backed up by the fact there injuries were all from bullet wounds to their backs.
Source F was written by an Anglican bishop who is very unlikely to lie as he is a man of God. His information should be trusted the most. He also had evidence taken from witnesses who could not have conferred their stories. All there accounts matched anyway. Every witness contradicted the Government claims that there were 20,000 people there; these witnesses also included Europeans who also had no reason to lie.
Overall statement A is most supported as 5 of the sources support this statement, and only 4 support statement B. Although this is only a difference of 1 statement A is more reliable as at least two of the 4 sources supporting statement B are from unreliable sources.