We know that even though by law blacks and whites were to live separately the needs for black workers in white areas cause a problem. When the government in 1948 said total segregation was impossible and that blacks in white areas could become permanent residents, it created the issue on which 1948 Election would be fought. What we know happened on the day, we know that the white police started shooting at 2 o’clock and that there was no warning volley so the blacks had no chance of getting away. Also we know that 76 Africans died and that 186 were wounded. The government wanted to make sure that they whites, blacks and coloureds lived separately, so pass laws were set up. But there was a problem; you could not judge a person race just by looking at their colour. So people needed to carry something to prove who they were and where they lived, if without a pass they were put in prison or they lost there job.
The reason the Sharpville massacre had such different interpretations was because no one knew who to believe the whites or the blacks because they would both be bias. The whites were saying that the blacks were deliberately breaking the law to provoke a reaction. They also said that the blacks were throwing stones and that they had fierce weapons, but in source f it is clearly seen that they don not have any kind of weapons.
The blacks were saying that the white didn’t give any kind of warning volley and that there was evidence that it was pre-meditated. Also there was evidence that the blacks were defenceless because there were shot in the back which implies that they were surprised and were running away from the whites. Although no weapons were found and that the government were consistent with the blacks in treating them wrongly the evidence does swing in the blacks favour because the white had thought to pre-meditate the attack. That s why there were so many different interpretations with the Sharpeville massacre. The government tried to apportion all of the blame on the blacks because they knew that the whole world was watching this historical event.
The purpose of source C was that it was the ‘chronicle of the 20th century’ so it was there to inform and provide factual information not to give opinions. Source E was from an encyclopaedia, which is the same as the chronicle, it was there to provide factual information. Source H was an account from an eyewitness, which was published, in a liberal magazine (i.e.- antiapartheid) The purpose of Source H was to get a message across to the black people that it all of the blame was to be blamed on the white police. In source H the eyewitness said there was no warning volley to warn them of gun- fire. So he was saying it was a surprise attack, the blacks had no chance of protecting themselves. Also Humphrey Taylor said that the white police said the crowd had weapons but he does not recall any weapons at the scene “I saw no weapons. Although I looked carefully and afterwards studied the photographs of the death scene”, but this is a bias view because it is wrote for an anti-apartheid magazine.
Source D was implying that the black people had no chance of surviving because most people had been shot in the back, which implies that, they didn’t expect to ‘under fire’ and that they were running away from the white police.
Source G was from an eyewitness but only told her story some years on, she recalls two white officers saying to her that they are going to start firing at two o’clock. Source I is very important because it was wrote for the Times a British newspaper so it will have a massive impact on peoples beliefs, because it is a very popular paper and it shows that the Sharpeville massacre was a world wide event that was covered by the media.
Source J was written by a white reporter who was an eyewitness that said she saw policemen who were kicking women who were trying to retrieve the dead bodies.
Source F is also very important because it is picture evidence about after the Sharpeville massacre and a picture alone evokes the emotion so it would be more affective than just words. The time of the sources determines how accurate it will be, because if the source were wrote at the time it would be fresher in their mind than maybe 30 years later. For example in source E it was written in 1961 so it was must be an accurate account of what happened because it was written just one year after it happened so it will be fresh in the writers memory. But in source G it is quite obvious that it was written some thirty years on and the woman’s memory will be not as clear. Perhaps some people thought that it was acceptable to speak their views when atmosphere in SA had changed- apartheid nearing end.
Sources B and F are very powerful images- very valuable sources. Photos only one moment but they don’t catch what happened before and after. They back up the idea of the blacks running away because they were shot in the back. Some sources have a personal interpretation of the events, which are different views, which raises the question of bias.
There are many different interpretations so no there are no definite versions of what happened. The weight of the evidence suggests that the Government was responsible. We need more evidence e.g. video, white police and a wider range of views.