“A constable shoved his rifle against my wind shield. Another pointed his rifle at my chest.”
Source B says the protesters were rioting and the police were forced to use violence as a last resort.
There are more differences like those that in Source B no cars were mentioned
However, in source A it says there were,
“Three Saracen armoured cars”.
Another disagreement is that the protesters were shouting different slogans source A sys they were shouting
“(Izwe lethu) our land”
However, source B says thousands of them were shouting “Africa”.
The sources agree on a few key points such as the protesters, the police cars.
Their views disagree about what happened on the morning of 21st March Source A suggests that the police were the aggressors but source B show the protestors to be violent. These views are confusing but we need to ask our selves,
Who do we believe?
Q: Do these photographs prove that either source A or source B is wrong?
Source C agrees with source A because there seems to be a relaxed atmosphere.
“It was like a Sunday outing”
This shows us there was no tension of any sort because it was like a Sunday outing, on these outings the people are relaxed we know this because
“They were grinning and cheerful”
another reason for this event being peaceful is that children were present shown in source C.
The police were present in source A and B in source A they were in their Saracen’s three to be precise the police were also armed expecting trouble.
The picture is not very valuable because it was taken in the morning, we do not know what happened before it and only one picture was taken; it is a bad angle to look at, as all the people seem to be in one place he cannot really tell what is happening. We know the violence started at lunchtime this has taken in the morning. Source C supports Source A wore but it is unreliable because of the above reasons, therefore it could prove B to be wrong. C disagrees with the atmosphere of B. Source C is peaceful however, source B was described to be violent, this means that source C does not support source B.
Source D agrees with source B because the people have besieged the car/van, the people are also holding up their thumbs but seem angry, we cannot see any children. We can only see one car at this angle; we do not have a full view. We only know this photograph was taken at lunchtime but we don’t know why it was taken. Or who took it?
This could be used in propaganda to say the blacks are violent and apartheid is a good thing.
Source D could prove source A wrong, source D looks violent and source A says the protesters were peaceful and the atmosphere was like a Sunday outing.
I believe there are too many problems with the pictures to really tell whish of the two sources is wrong.
Q: How reliable is source F as evidence of what happened at Sharpeville?
Source F is reliable because it was taken from the statements given to the Anglican bishop of Johannesburg. His statement was based on interviews taken under oath by those wounded at Sharpeville, when someone is under oath they are before god there fore they will try and tell the truth to the fullest because lying is a sin.
It coveys the following points to contradict what the police have said earlier that the police station was besieged by 20,000 black Africans, but a witness saw no more then 4000. The witness also said the police lined up outside the police station and all fired together. The only warning came from an African police officer he shouted
“Run they are going to shoot”.
Nearly all those who were later treated in hospital for shots in the back.
This clearly shows us they were running for their lives. They also said no one provoked the police, the crowed had good intensions for a peaceful rally the police were the aggressors. The witnesses were kept in separate wards so they could not discuss what happened, this makes this source more reliable because the statements are all of their own and yet they all agree, which could make this a more reliable source.
The bishop is a respectable and reliable person because he wrote the truth but he is bias because e is a member of the Anglican Church who was against segregation from the beginning. The opinions of these witnesses are not reliable as evidence because they would not say,
“Oh I threw a stone at them to annoy them, then they shot me and the others “.
Source F is very bias because they are all anti apartheid the facts are unbalanced they are only putting their view forward and they might want revenge having been injured.
Source E is reliable