Another factor is the attitude of the crowd. In Source C, we cannot see clearly the expressions on the protestor’s faces if indeed that is what they are doing. They could be smiling and protesting peacefully. Or they could have rocks at there sides silently aggravated and angry. We will never know. This applies also to Source D in that the photo was taken behind protestors and people are blocking our view of the car. We cannot be sure of the driver or the crowd’s actions whether peaceful or otherwise.
Another point is that on Source A the policemen are sitting outside the Saracen, whether this is a peaceful gesture or they are aiming to intimidate we cannot tell. The people ahead look like they are blocking the road but they could also be quite willing to move as the AC gets closer. Also in this picture we cannot see if the policemen are carrying any form of weapons. They seem to be empty handed as do the crowd but we cannot make sure.
All in all we cannot be sure of the reliability of either of these photos but they are still useful and interesting to study. We cannot take from these a valid conclusion and thus cannot tell if they back up, or negate the view put to us in question 2 there are just too many variables and indifferences between the article and the photos. However there are some similarities.
Both tell of the police sitting on the Saracen and crowds gathering, either for peaceful protests, or violent rebellion we cannot say. Lastly I would like to say that all three of these sources could have been perverted by their cause. The police may have taken the photo in source C deliberately to show those people, whereas they were just curious bystanders. And again Tyler’s sympathy towards The Africans may have affected the way in which he wrote his articles.
3) Source F would appear to be reliable for the fact that the man making the statement was a man of God and he would have been held by religious and morale oath. The circumstances in which the statements were made by the victims; both under oath and separate from each other, negating the fact that they could have a conglomerated response; leaves no doubt as to the reliability of their additions. However there is the possibility that their position and sympathy towards the cause would blind them from the truth.
Both sources agree that there was “…no weapons…” present and the crowd “…was not armed…” Source A, states that the police were hit by stones, only 3 times and this doesn’t to me seem enough reason to fire upon a crowd of 4,000 people. Source A states that the police claimed to being “…Stoned.” And that the crowd had “…ferocious weapons…” yet both Tyler and Ambrose agree that there was definitely no weapons present.
The only problem with the two sources are that Tyler and Reeves are both sympathisers to the victims cause and could have quite easily written biased information claiming that the polices actions were unnecessary. All the statements came from victims and sympathisers, this could again have de-valued the material in terms of reliability
4) I will begin by questioning each source’s reliability in turn. Source E, was written again by Tyler who was present at the location of Sharpville as these events happened. He seems to write a true experience of what happened; yet I feel that his sympathy for the Africans at that time could have swayed his thoughts and writing style. The information throughout agrees with other peoples in which I have already suggested in previous questions.
As for Source G, I for one cannot be sure of this photos reliability. We do not know the photographer but I am fairly sure it would have been taken by an African sympathiser, as if it had not then the photo is very unlikely to have ever been published. There is not much proof of place either in this photo; I cannot tell where this photo was indeed taken.
However there are some suggestions of reliability in Source G, as mentioned and argued by some of the people present and Tyler’s account (Source E) there are no weapons, only bodies and wounded people. Another interesting point that could suggest reliability is the fact that most of the bodies seem to be facing all in one direction with a slight variation possibly caused by the panic of the situation.
With these points in mind this photo is only a small section of the wider picture, we cannot judge if there were 7 people killed or 70. There are certainly no weapons present on the floor but surely if this was an African sympathiser then they would surely have taken the photo with great care.
As for source E the only problem that I can think of is that of Tyler’s sympathy for his cause. His information seems to be consistent with the photo and that of other sources and for this reason I deem both the photo and the article reliable upon slight more proof being given supporting both positions.
5a) Without taking a look at the sources, using purely knowledge from Africa’s historical background, industrially and socially. We know that they were much less advanced than that of the European invaders who had weapons and technology. With which they abused and used to steal land and possessions from the natives of South Africa. They grew to the mentality that they were supreme because they had the power to control them, at first.
We know that the white racists governed South Africa and during the late 1940’s and early 1950s more Black Natives were protesting with the support of some white people. The mainly peaceful ANC generally did not start violent protests and were very much a pacifistic party. We also know that the main reason for Apartheid was control; a white minority was bent on keeping their privileged position in society, “race”, the government and the country.
Every person in source H, I and J were representatives of a government that believed in Apartheid and the racial superiority of the whites. We can deduce from this that their personal belief was that of white racial superiority, and that this justified the bad treatment of the Black native community.
(Source H) Colonel Piernaar’s attitude shows us that he believes that native black Africans cannot demonstrate peacefully (“For them to gather means violence.”) and that actions such as throwing stones should be treat with extreme force. This sort of attitude is not surprising from a policeman whose job was to uphold and enforce Apartheid.
(Source I) Dr Verwoerd’s attitude is much the same as he again is a representative of the government. We would expect the head of Apartheid to defend their beliefs although not directly opposing what had happened he indirectly used his attitudes to influence his writing. Things such as “Telephone wires were cut” and “…Forcibly removing their identity books.” Made the actions of the demonstrators seem threatening and violent.
(Source J) Once again, the South African Embassy in London put a large emphasis on the “violent nature” and aggressiveness of the demonstrators. They highlight events such as “… nine policemen were brutally battered to death…” They consistently say that the protestors had weaponry and exaggerate the amount that was present.
5b) Now we can fully understand as to each person attitude towards the Africans combined with my knowledge of South African history, we can now discuss why these three sources are considerably different to the other sources given.
In Source H Colonel Piernaar gives a very blatantly racist view on the events at Sharpville, his account is very much on the defensive and he tries to justify their actions through Apartheid “…they must learn their lessons the hard way.” He does this through emphasising the aggressiveness of the crowd through violent wording “…hordes of natives surrounded the police station…” is just one example of this within his view of the shootings.
Dr Verwoerd, again is very similar to Piernaar in his differences, although he does not give a direct racist comment he goes to more trouble to indirectly emphasise the attitude of the demonstrators. Within Source I he uses language such as “…forcibly removing identity books.”
