Sharpeville Sources Question
Nitin Tailor 10I
Sharpeville Sources Question
a:
Sources A + B both describe events that took part in Sharpeville. Both sources describe actions taken by the police who were armed in Saracens. Both sources also describe that there were huge number of African people shouting in part of their actions in their demonstrations.
b:
Although sources A + B both describe events that took place in Sharpeville, they also differ slightly. In source A it is reported that the black people were greeting the police on the Saracens with grinning and cheerful, yet in source B, the report states the people were very violent and vented their feelings violently. In source A, it mentions a reporter being present at the scene, yet there is no mention of a reported in source B. The feeling in the two sources/reports also differs. Source A is backing the blacks and source B is backing the whites. Source A quotes "A constable shoved his rifle against my windshield, another pointing his rifle at my chest" this is where two heavily handed police officers force a black man out of his car. Source B quotes "soon the police station was virtually besieged by thousands of Africans shouting 'Africa, Africa", the English reporter is telling of the trouble caused by the thousands of Africans.
2:
The impression source A gives us about Sharpeville is that the Africans are grinning and cheerful. The situation seems peaceful as the crowd are waving to the police.
In source C, it appears that the situation is very peaceful. The African police appear to be sitting on the Saracens without any fear. It also looks as if the crowd are behaving peacefully as they appear not to be behaving violently. Source D gives us the impression that the crowd are behaving peacefully and offering "thumbs up" as a sign of peace protest. I agree that these 2 photos (source c + d) prove that the impression given by source A of the situation in Sharpeville on the morning of 21st March is correct. Both sources agree that the scene is peaceful on both parts (crowd & police) and that the police and the crowd are getting along peacefully without violence. Although in source D, none of the faces can be seen, it is very likely that the impressions of the unseen faces are peaceful and friendly.
3:
Source E is another extract from Tyler's account; he is describing the day's events in Sharpeville in which himself and his photographer were at. In his account, Tyler quotes "Before the shooting, I heard no warning to the crowd to disperse." & "when the shooting started, it did not stop until there was no living thing on the huge compound in front of the police station". He is saying that the police opened fire without any notice and didn't stop until everyone was dead. The police then claimed that the crowd were armed with "ferocious weapons" ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
3:
Source E is another extract from Tyler's account; he is describing the day's events in Sharpeville in which himself and his photographer were at. In his account, Tyler quotes "Before the shooting, I heard no warning to the crowd to disperse." & "when the shooting started, it did not stop until there was no living thing on the huge compound in front of the police station". He is saying that the police opened fire without any notice and didn't stop until everyone was dead. The police then claimed that the crowd were armed with "ferocious weapons" but when Tyler and his reporter studied photos of the death scene they did not see any weapons "and afterwards when I studies the photographs of the death scene, I only saw boots & hats"
Source F is a statement by the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves; his statement was based on interviews under oath. The source summarised that all the witnesses thought that the police were too heavy handed to a crowd no more then 4000. It included statements saying that they were not given any warning and did not behave in a way, which would provoke the police to open fire.
Both sources are reliable as evidence of what happened of what happened. In their own ways they both have strong cases as evidence, the reporter and his photographer in Source E were actually there and Source F consists of many statements by some who were part of the crowd. But I don't think Source F is too reliable as evidence, the contents of the source were all written under oath. The statement was written a few days after the shootings, in them days the wounded could have been threatened or harassed not too give incriminating evidence even though the interviews were based under oath.
4.
Source E is another extract from Tyler's account. It explains the events of people fleeing Sharpeville. It was only written from 1 point of view but does explain the events in detail. Source G is a photograph of people fleeing Sharpeville on 21st March. The photographer seems to have taken the photo from a low position as the majority of the photo is taken up by crops. In the photo there are many people who look like running away. In the background it looks like there is a helicopter, which was most probably brought in to defuse the situation. To decide which is more useful, it comes down to which one is more reliable, Source E is written from 1 point of view and Source G is a actual photo taken on the day of the events, I think source G is more useful as evidence of what happened in Sharpeville because if a lawyer or prosecution service wanted to have evidence they would rather want a photo then a statement. The photo shows more clearly the events then Source E.
5a:
Colonel Piernaar who is the police commander at Sharpeville writes source H. Soon after the shootings, he summarised that if the blacks wanted to mess, they have to learn their lessons the hard way. He thought that the blacks were too violent and demonstrated violence. Source I is written by the prime minister of South Africa, he said that the crowd grew from 2000 to 20000 and that they got so violent the police had to open fire and killed 25 and wounded 50, when more accurate reports say that 68 were killed. The attitude shown by the South African authorities was one of disrespect. The police commander quoted the blacks as being "native", he also quoted that when his car was struck that "if they do these things, they must learn their lessons the hard way" It is very likely that the prime minister exaggerated about the amount of demonstrators so that it seems there was more violence which then results in the case for apartheid to be stronger. The fact that the statements were written within days of each other also backed each other's statements up as well as the overall case for apartheid. The whites thought that they were superior then the blacks. The overall attitude shown from the whites to the blacks was always the same.
5b:
This period in South Africa was surrounding apartheid and the stranglehold the whites had over the blacks. Sources H, I, J are different because white government officials write them all. They all exaggerate the level of violence used by the blacks at Sharpeville and that the sources are biased. This is done to strengthen the whites claim for apartheid to continue Source H written by the police commander at Sharpeville, claims that the violence started with hordes of natives surrounding the police station and then striking his car with a stone. Source I written by the prime minister of South Africa, states that crowds grew from 2000 to 20000, which resulted in the police opening fire and killing 25 when later figures show 68 were killed. These two sources clearly show the officials attempt to exaggerate the level of violence and even lie to keep apartheid intact. The sources were created to keep apartheid intact and that the blacks take the blame.
6:
Nelson Mandela said in his autobiography published in 1994 "The demonstrators were controlled and unarmed. The police opened fire on the crowd and continued to shoot as they turned and ran in fear, it was a massacre". This statement was made after the events in Sharpeville where police opened fire and killed approximately 67. In 1988, a book published in South Africa quoted "The police were under attack and opened fire in self-defence" From these interpretations and sources A-G, I think Nelson Mandela is supported the best because all the openly written extracts and reports viewed the blacks as being peaceful and the police as being violent. These views back up Nelson Mandela's statement. From sources A-G, source would be an exception, it is written by an English news-reporter. All the information which the English had access to would have been given to by white South African officials, which would have been against the blacks and in the biased view of the whites. Source C is a photograph of crowds gathering at Sharpeville on the morning of 21st March. The photo shows a peaceful scene as the police are sitting on their Saracens and the crowd are walking without any violence. Source E describes the events as the police opened fire for a long duration without any warning; it later says that the police lied about the crowds 'violence' as just an excuse to open fire. All these sources back up Nelson Mandela's statement that
"It was a massacre" The sources prove that the crowd were intent for violence, they only come to protest and that the police had every meaning to kill.
7:
People disagree about events at Sharpeville because there were two sides to the story. Some people supported the blacks and some supported the whites and they also disagree because of racism. At this period, apartheid was well intact when blacks were only allowed in white areas if they had a pass or was employed by a white person. The people who agreed with apartheid said that apartheid was a good thing, where as the blacks that didn't agree with apartheid said it was a bad thing. People disagree about events at Sharpeville because people heard different things from different points of view. The whites told everyone that the blacks were too violent and brought on apartheid themselves. Where as the blacks told everyone that the whites bullied them and that apartheid was unfair. People also disagree because of the biased sources. Source J issued by the South African Embassy in London said "the demonstrators shot first...." It then went on to say "nine policemen were brutally battered to death by a so-called "unarmed mob of native rioters" This firmly places the blame on the blacks stating that they started the violence and killing. When reading this it is only normal that people think the blacks were to blame, but when reading Source A, they might think different. Source A was written by the only journalist to witness the events he said, "The Africans were grinning and cheerful. Some kids waved to the policemen sitting on the Saracens and two of the policemen waved back. He later said
"A constable shoved his rifle against my wind-shield and leaned into the car shouting" These two sources both point the blame at the other party and would therefore only cause people disagree about events in sharpeville.
