Comparing Two Sources

Comparing Two Sources

Length: 4541 words (13 double-spaced pages)

Rating: Excellent

Open Document

Essay Preview

More ↓
Comparing Two Sources

There are disagreements and agreements between source A and source B.
Source A was from a report written by a journalist Humphrey Tyler, who
worked for a South African magazine. The report was written later on
the same day that the shooting occurred. Source B was from an English
newspaper, published the day after the shooting.

Source A and source B both agree and disagree with each other over
different things. In both sources they agree that there were Saracens
involved, but they disagree on how many were there. In source A: - "…
three Saracen armoured cars." And in source B: - "…about a dozen
Saracens…" The two sources agree that many of the Sharpeville
townspeople were shouting, but they disagree on what they were
shouting. In source A, it is said, "…were shouting the Pan- Africanist
slogan "Izwe Lethu" (Our Land)." In source B they say, "…Africans
shouting "Africa, Africa". Both sources mention that the townspeople
were outside the police station, source A says there was "crowds" of
them, source B says "besieged by thousands". Both sources agree that a
car was driven to the police station, source A "…driving behind a big
grey police car…" and source B "A motor car from the council…" The
sources disagree on their opinion of the mood of the townspeople,
while source A says the crowed was "…grinning and cheerful…" "…looked
interested and some just grinned." And in source B "…besieged by
thousands of Africans…" "…emerged as a wreck and the people inside
were injured."(Talking about the car, which had driven through the
crowd earlier). The general way the source are written, or the "vibe"
is different as well, source A is written in a positive way (making
the crowd seem happy), then source B which is written negatively
(making the crowd seem aggressive).

The sources agree to the extent that they agree on the general
details, but disagree on specific details. For example: - they both
agreed that there was Saracens present but they disagreed on the

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Comparing Two Sources." 123HelpMe.com. 08 Dec 2019
    <https://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=120984>.

Need Writing Help?

Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.

Check your paper »

Comparing Two Engineering Careers: Electrical and Computer Essay

- ... Report Organization The report focuses on two main career choices: Electrical Engineer and Computer Engineer. The report is broken down to main section and the following sub-sections: • Job Responsibilities • Academic Qualifications • Estimated Compensation • Growth Potential The report finalizes with a conclusion the recommendation for the most appropriate career choice for the Michael. The career choice is based on the research found in this report and Michael’s previous career path and future desired goals....   [tags: path, goals, sources, career]

Research Papers
1433 words (4.1 pages)

Essay on Comparing Sources of Research Material

- Comparing Sources of Research Material The purpose of the assignment is to compare and contrast the source of research material available to a learner. We were first assigned to find a source from the Internet, and the second assignment was to find another source from the periodicals in the USCA library. This comparison will help each individual to determine the type of reading that benefits him or her the most. From these two sources, I learned a great deal of information about the different influences and ways that people learn....   [tags: Reseach Sources Writing Education]

Free Essays
1165 words (3.3 pages)

Comparing Sources A and B and their Agreement about Prohibition Essay

- Comparing Sources A and B and their Agreement about Prohibition In 1920 Prohibition came into effect across the United States. Between January 1920 and December 1933 it was against the law to make, sell or transport alcoholic drinks in the USA. This was written into the American Constitution by the 18th Amendment. Both sources, A and B agree about certain aspects of Prohibition, they both talk about the influence of the anti-saloon league. Source A says “among possible explanations we must include… the influence of the anti-saloon league” showing that the influence of the anti-saloon league was a key factor in trying to decide what was responsible for the introdu...   [tags: Papers]

Free Essays
610 words (1.7 pages)

Essay on Comparing Two Articles on Abortion

- The two articles were selected under the same subject “abortion” which is summarized together. The first article summarized on “Women No More Likely to Seek Mental Health Care after an Abortion than before, study finds” taken from popular medical online news, Medical News Today. Second article summarized on “Increased MMA concentration and body mass index are associated with spontaneous Abortion in Brazilian women: A pilot study” by Elvira M.Guerra-Shinohara, Perla M. Pereira, Ananka M. Kubota, Thaiomara A....   [tags: compare, contrast]

Research Papers
1035 words (3 pages)

Comparing Two Magazines Essay

- Comparing Two Magazines For my compare and contrast essay, I have decided to compare two magazines in the financial and business world of entrepreneurs. The name of the first magazine is ” Small business opportunities” and the second magazine is “Entrepreneurs – Be your own boss” The theme of the first magazine is to highlight, how and what type of businesses to start and make money without putting in much of the hard work. The very first page of the magazine shows an absolute image of the man and women dressed up with lots of money and a road of success....   [tags: Compare and Contrast]

Research Papers
524 words (1.5 pages)

Renewable Energy Sources For The World 's Energy Supply Essay

- Most people don’t realize just how much energy they use every day, but when you think about it, they use it for everything, gas in your vehicle 's, heating, and lights. That cell phone you are using, is powered by fossil fuels. Did you know that most cell phone companies make solar powered battery chargers.  Most people have their reservations about solar powered things, but it has been proven that renewable energy sources are the way to go (Top Ten). Renewable energy sources are better for our Earth, cost less, and offer a wider range of “healthy” uses....   [tags: Fossil fuel, Wind power, Energy development]

Research Papers
990 words (2.8 pages)

Comparing Problems Faced by Two Cities: Lima and Tokyo Essay

- Comparing Problems Faced by Two Cities: Lima and Tokyo I will compare and contrast some of the problems experienced by the two mega cities, Lima and Tokyo. Two absolutely different cities located on two different continents, have to cope with some similar problems....   [tags: Papers]

Free Essays
1257 words (3.6 pages)

Essay on Comparing Two Articles on Teen Binge Drinking

- Comparing Two Articles on Teen Binge Drinking The article How to Manage Teen Drinking (the smart way), written by Jeffery Kluger and the article Getting Stupid, written by Bernie Wuethrich are both articles about teenage binge drinking. The two articles are very similar and different at the same time, while together rhetorically appealing to the logos. Combined they give a good background on teenage binge drinking. Both articles have many similarities; both agree that binge drinking is a problem among adolescents across the country....   [tags: Teenage Compare Contrast Comparison]

Research Papers
776 words (2.2 pages)

A Comparison of Two Newspaper Articles

- A Comparison of Two Newspaper Articles In this coursework 'B' I would be comparing two news articles from two different sources. This coursework will be divided into three parts. The background and context, the view of both articles i.e. use of languages, headlines, quotes used e.t.c the last part will be my opinion and the conclusion. The main idea is to compare two news articles about a prison called Guantanomo bay in Cubaand how the prisoners are being treated, if the prisoners require a fair trial, if torture is going on and so on....   [tags: Papers]

Research Papers
795 words (2.3 pages)

History and Accurately Reconstructing the Past Essay

- The past is complicated and often difficult to comprehend, making reconstructing history a challenging task. When trying to piece together the past, there are numerous issues that can arise for historians, mostly catered toward sources - anything historians use to gain information on the past. Among these issues, the most prominent include reliability of said sources, bias, and lack of information. These problems only serve to complicate the process of reconstructing the past accurately....   [tags: Bias, Sources, Events]

Research Papers
806 words (2.3 pages)

Related Searches

number.

Question 2

Source C says that two white policemen came up to a Sharpeville
resident asking for water; they then said to the resident that at two
o'clock they were going to start shooting. For this question I am
looking at if source C proves the massacre at Sharpeville was planned
on March 21st 1960.

When looking at the source, it has to be taken into consideration the
author of the source Modiehi Mahabane was a Sharpeville resident who
was recalling in 1990 the events at Sharpeville. This Sharpeville
resident may be still angry about what happened and be
white-prejudice. It also has to be taken in to consideration that in
1990 there was great movement in Black rights, Modiehi Mahabane may be
just trying to fuel Black sympathy by exaggerating slightly. The
Sharpeville resident is recalling these events 30 years after the
event, and may be a bit unclear on what they remember, or has adapted
there story to be more interesting.

The source says that the shooting would occur at two o'clock, when you
cross reference this with source A which says that "We went into
Sharpeville the back way, around lunch time…" the journalist who wrote
source A was turned away from Sharpeville, and from source D we know
he returned later, most likely around the time that the policemen
said. In order to assess the reliability it is possible to compare
it's contents with other information: - for example, the report by the
Rt. Reverend Ambrose Reeves, which confirms that there was a shooting
on March 21st 1960 in Sharpeville at approximately the time mentioned
in source C (two o'clock).

You can't prove that the police planned the massacre at Sharpeville
from only one source. There is not enough evidence to prove if the
shooting was planned or not, even when you cross-reference, because
you do not know if the other sources are reliable.

Question 3

Source E is from a statement made a few days after the Sharpeville
shootings by the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves. The
Source is from witness statements, it mainly states the facts found
out after the shooting and the witnesses opinions of what happened. In
order to assess the reliability of this source it is possible to look
at the provenance of the source and to cross-reference it with other
sources.

From my own research, I have found out that the Anglican Bishop of
Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves, was white and originally from England.
He was part of the Anglican Church, which was very anti-apartheid.
Being part of the church would mean he would always try and tell the
truth, but it doesn't mean he couldn't or wouldn't lie. The Bishop may
or may not have lied, it is impossible to tell, but because we know
that he is very anti-apartheid, it is likely that he may have arranged
the information to appear in favour of the black Sharpeville
residents. The Bishop wrote the source from statements made by Black
Sharpeville residents, who would more then likely be extremely angry
with what had happened, so they might have disfigured the truth, but
you also have the fact they were all witnesses, they were all there at
the shooting, which can be proven because they were all being treated
in hospital for bullet wounds. It is less likely that the witnesses
would be able to tell the same story and be lying so soon after the
shooting, because they were all in separate wards of the hospital, and
unable to talk to any of the other wounded residents. So even though
they would want the shooting to appear in the best possible light for
them it is unlikely that they would be able to lie, and tell the same
story without being able to interact with each other.

You can cross-reference source E with other sources to get an idea on
how reliable it is. When you cross reference source E with sources D
and G, you find similarities between them. Source G agrees with source
E about the police firing into the Sharpeville residents backs as they
ran away. Source E "…nearly all those being treated in hospital had
been shot in the back." And source G " the police reloaded and fired
into their backs." "…only 30 police bullets had entered the bodies of
the dead and wounded from the front, while 155 had done so from the
back." Source G also agrees that no warning was given before the
police opened fire. Source E "…that the police did not attempt to give
a warning before opening fire." And source G "he gave no order for the
crowd to disperse." Source D also agrees with source E on some points,
like there was no warning heard "I heard no warning to the crowd to
disperse." That the police were shooting at the running Sharpeville
residents " hundreds of women rushed past us, some of them laughing …
hundreds of kids were running too." They both say that the crowd was
unarmed, source E "…that the crowd was not armed, even with sticks."
Source D "I saw no weapons…" Even though these sources agree with
source E, there are also sources, which disagree that have to be
looked at, like source H, J and I. While source E says that the crowd
unarmed "…the crowd was not armed." Source J disagrees by saying that
the crowd was armed "…the demonstrators attacked the police with
assorted weapons, including firearms." There is a disagreement between
sources on the number of people present, source E says, " All
witnesses contradicted the government claim that the police station
was besieged by 20,000 Africans" and source J "…about 20,000 natives…"
Source E and H disagree on the mood of the residents, source E says
"…the crowd was good natured and unarmed…" and source H says that "The
native mentality does not allow Africans to gather for peaceful
demonstrations."

Even though sources agree and disagree with source E, this doesn't
mean it is possible to say whether the source is reliable or not, the
reliability of the sources you have used to cross-reference with must
be taken in to consideration. If the source you have used is
unreliable, then the cross-referencing is useless.

It is impossible to say if source E is reliable or not because there
is contradicting evidence. The source was written by an Anglican
bishop from witness statements, it shouldn't be in his nature to lie.
He might have rearranged the evidence in a way that was in the
Sharpeville residents favour or left out any incriminating evidence,
but not lie. If he had done this then it would have been because he
was very anti-apartheid, having been a leader in black rights, as was
the Anglican Church. It is very hard to say how reliable this source
is.

Question 4

This question requires me to look at which source is more useful as
evidence of what happened at Sharpeville, source D or source F. Source
D is an extract from a South African journalist, Humphrey Tyler. It
was written later on the same day that the shooting occurred. Source F
is a photograph taken after the shooting, later that day, by an
unknown photographer.

Source D is a description of what the journalist Humphrey Tyler saw
and heard while he was in Sharpeville when the shooting occurred. He
states how he "...heard the chatter of a machine gun, then another,
then another." and that there was hundreds of women and children
running past him, some of which were laughing, he says he believes
they thought the police were firing blanks. He then describes how he
saw a young boy running with an old black coat held up behind his
head, he believes that he boy thought it might save him from the
bullets. He then goes on to tell us about a policeman who was standing
on top of a Saracen, Tyler says that "…it looked as though he was
firing his Sten gun into the crowd. He was swinging it around in a
wide arc from his hip as thought he were panning a movie camera." He
then goes on to say that when the shooting stopped, nobody was moving
within the field they were in and that they were either wounded or
dead, he was then urged by his photographer to go "… before they get
my film.". He then jumps to before the shooting by saying "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 then tells us what the police said about
what happened "The police have claimed they were in desperate danger
because the crowd was stoning them…The police also have said that the
crowd was armed with "ferocious weapons"." He then goes on to say how
what he saw contradicted that of the police claims "…Yet only three
policemen were reported to have been hit by stones. … I saw no
weapons, and afterwards when I studied the photographs of the death
scene I saw only shoes, hats and a few bicycles among the bodies." We
don't know much about Tyler, so we don't know if his truthful or bias,
we don't know whether he was pro-black or what his view as on
apartheid, but we can say if he was pro-apartheid then he would not
have written this report, which is very pro-black.

Source F is a photograph taken after the shooting, later that day, by
an unknown photographer. In the photograph it is possible to see
several wounded or dead people. In the foreground of the photograph
there is a women lying on her fount, the same as most of the other
people in the photograph, suggesting they have been shot in the back.
In the mid-ground of the photograph there is someone who is wounded
and has his hands clutching at his head. Within the photograph it is
impossible to any weapons or anything that might have suggested that
they were an aggressive group.

Source D gives a lot of information about the actual shooting, what
the police said about it and his opinions, while source F, the
photograph, doesn't give a lot of information, it just tells about
after the shooting. Source D says what the police were doing, that
there was no warning, that the crowd was not armed etc. Source F only
give information about after the shooting, like how people were killed
or wounded, that people had been shot in the back etc. Out of the two
sources source D is more useful, because it gives us more information
about the shooting and what happened afterwards.

Question 5

Part a

Sources H, I and J differ from sources A-G in many different ways. In
the sources H, I and J the information and facts differ, as well as
the "vibe" of the writings differs from sources A-G. For example, they
disagree on the number of people that were there, source I says, "The
crowds grew until there were some 20,000 people there." And source J
"…planned demonstrations of about 20,000 natives…" while source E
says, "…that the crowd was no more then 4,000." And source G which
says "…the crowd, numbering some 6,000…" The sets of sources also
disagree on the number of people killed or wounded. Source I says
"…and 25 people were killed and 50 wounded." While source G say's "…
sixty-nine Africans died…while 178 were wounded." The different
sources disagree on whether or not the people in the crowd were armed
and if the police had to fire in self-defence because of this. Source
I says, "…police had to open fire…" and source J says "…demonstrators
attacked the police with an assortment of weapons, including firearms.
The demonstrators shot first and the police were forced to fir in
self-defence…" While source D says, "…police have claimed they were
desperate danger because the crowd was stoning them. Yet only three
policemen were reported to have been hit by stones." and from the same
source "…police also have said that the crowd was armed with
"ferocious weapons". I saw no weapons…" Source E also says " All the
statements agreed that the crowd was not armed, even with sticks." The
sources also differ on the mood and mentality of the crowd. Source H
says, "The native mentality does not allow Africans to gather for
peaceful demonstrations. For them to gather means violence." And
source I says "Telephone wires were cut and disturbances occurred."
While source A contradicts this by saying "they were grinning and
cheerful…" source E also say's "All the witnesses said that the crowd
was good natured…"

There are many different facts and opinions within these two set of
sources A-G and sources H, I and J, which contradict with each other.

Part b

These three sources H, I and J, give a different opinion of what
happened at Sharpeville from what the other sources say.

Source H was written by Colonel Pienaar, who was the police Commander
at Sharpeville on the day of the shooting, speaking soon after the
shooting. As he was part of the police force, he would be enforcing
apartheid rules and he is very anti-black, this show through what he
says in his statement. "The native mentality does not allow Africans
together for peaceful demonstrations. For them to gather means
violence." Source I was written by Dr Verwoerd, who at the time was
the Prime Minister of South Africa. He was giving his account of the
events at Sharpeville to Parliament on the 22nd March 1960, the day
after the shooting. Dr Verwoerd was involved in the introduction of
apartheid in South Africa, and so would be pro-apartheid and
anti-black. Source J is from a statement issued by the South Africa
Embassy in London on the 26th of March, five days after the shooting.
The South Africa embassy in London would have gotten their facts and
information from the South African government and Dr Verwoerd, the
South African Prime Minister, at that time. As we are also using
sources A-G, we must look at their providence and purpose too. Source
A Source A was from a report written by a journalist Humphrey Tyler,
who worked for a South African magazine. The report was written later
on the same day that the shooting occurred. As a journalist he would
looking at making a good story, he had to have been white, other wise
he would not be working for a South African magazine, but doesn't seem
to be pro-apartheid. Source B was from an English newspaper, published
the day after the shooting. This source seems to be quite pro-police,
which is odd considering England was an anti-apartheid country, you
have you question where did the newspaper got its information from.
Modiehi Mahabane, a Sharpeville resident, wrote source C and is
recalling in 1990 the events at Sharpeville. This Sharpeville resident
may be still angry about what happened and be white-prejudice. It also
has to be taken in to consideration that in 1990 there was great
movement in Black rights, Modiehi Mahabane may be just trying to fuel
Black sympathy by exaggerating slightly. The Sharpeville resident is
recalling these events 30 years after the event, and may be a bit
unclear on what they remember, or has adapted there story to be more
interesting. Source D is the second extract from journalists Humphrey
Tyler's report. Within this source he talks about immediate time
around the shooting. Source E is from a statement made a few days
after the Sharpeville shootings by the Anglican Bishop of
Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves. The Source is from witness statements,
it mainly states the facts found out after the shooting and the
witnesses opinions of what happened. From my own research I have found
out that the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves, was
white and originally from England. He was part of the Anglican Church,
which was very anti-apartheid. Being part of the church would mean he
would always try and tell the truth, but it doesn't mean he couldn't
or wouldn't lie. Source F is a Photograph taken after the shooting,
later that day, by an unknown photographer. Its purpose, must have
been to show the people who were killed or wounded at Sharpeville.
Source G is an extract from the book "White Man, We Want To Talk To
You." Which was written by Denis Herbstein, foreign correspondent for
the BBC and The Sunday Times, in 1978, 18 years after the shootings.
We don't know if he was at Sharpeville when the shootings occurred, or
if he is writing from information he has found after the shootings.
His writing is not bias, just factual; he gives a general view of what
happened.

These sources (H, I and J) differ from the rest because they were
written for a difference purpose then the others (A-G). Colonel
Pienaar (who was the author of source H), was trying to say that it
wasn't the polices fault, but he isn't very smart because he lets his
prejudice shine through his words. "The native mentality does not
allow Africans together for peaceful demonstrations. For them to
gather means violence." and "if they do these things they must learn
their lesson the hard way." He is not saying that the shooting was
planned, but that he isn't sorry in ended up like it did. Dr Verwoerd,
(who wrote source I), was also saying that it wasn't the police at
fault, but unlike the police commander from source H, he doesn't show
any prejudice that he might feel. He is also trying to justify what
happen what happened at Sharpeville to the South African Parliament.
"Telephone wires were cut and disturbances occurred." and "the police
had to open fire…" Source J, an extract from the statement made in
London from the South African embassy there. This source has much the
same purpose as the other two, to say that the shooting was not
planned and that it wasn't the polices fault. This source would have
also have been used to try and justify the actions taken at
Sharpeville to a very anti-apartheid audience in London. "The
demonstrators shot first and the police had to open fire in
self-defence…" sources I and J are very similar in content and
approach, because they have been written by the same sort of people
under strict rules about what could and could not be said. These
sources are saying that the black Africans were angry and violent, but
from background knowledge it is known that generally native African
demonstrations were peaceful. The reason these sources differ from the
rest is that they were written for a different purpose, they would be
used to justify the polices actions and to say that it wasn't the
polices fault because they had to fire in self-defence because the
African crowd was violent and attacked them.

Question 6

This question requires me to look at all sources. I am to decide which
interpretation the evidence given in sources A-J and my own knowledge
best supports. For each interpretation I am going to look at the
sources that support what it is saying. I will look at the reliability
of the source I am using to support the interpretation by
cross-referencing and looking at it providence. I will then say how
the source supports the interpretation.

Interpretation 1 say's, "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." Nelson Mandela wrote
this in his autobiography, which was published in 1994. The
interpretation is saying that the crowd was unarmed and non-violent,
and that the police opened fire for no reason and continued shooting
even when the crowd turned and ran away. Sources A, C, D, E and G all
support interpretation 1.

Source A is an extract from a report written by journalist Humphrey
Tyler, who was working for a South African magazine. He was an
eyewitness and was actually at Sharpeville when the shooting occurred.
This report was written later on the same day as the shooting. Source
A supports interpretation 1 by saying "They were grinning and
cheerful…" but this source doesn't say anything about the actual
shooting, only before, so it only gives his opinion on the crowd. It
doesn't tell us if the polices fired in self-defence or not.

Modiehi Mahabane, a Sharpeville resident, wrote source C and is
recalling in 1990 the events at Sharpeville. The reliability of this
source is questionable; I found this out through looking at the
providence of the source and cross-referencing the sources with
others. In order to assess the reliability it is possible to compare
it's contents with other information: - for example, the report by the
Rt. Reverend Ambrose Reeves, which confirms that there was a shooting
on March 21st 1960 in Sharpeville at approximately the time mentioned
in source C (two o'clock). The source says that the shooting would
occur at two o'clock, when you cross reference this with source A
which says that "We went into Sharpeville the back way, around lunch
time…" the journalist (Humphrey Tyler) who wrote source A was turned
away from Sharpeville in the morning, and from source D we know he
returned later, most likely around the time that the policemen said.
When looking at the source, the author of the source has to be taken
into consideration. Modiehi Mahabane was a Sharpeville resident who
was recalling in 1990 the events at Sharpeville. This Sharpeville
resident may be still angry about what happened and be
white-prejudice. It also has to be taken in to consideration that in
1990 there was great movement in Black rights, Modiehi Mahabane may be
just trying to fuel Black sympathy by exaggerating a bit. The
Sharpeville resident is recalling these events 30 years after the
event, and it is possible that they might be a bit unclear on what
they remember, or has adapted there story to be more interesting.
Source C supports interpretation 1 because it says, "They said, "You
know, at two o'clock, we are going to start shooting."" The source is
saying that the shooting was planned, which supports interpretation 1,
because the police wouldn't be firing in self-defence if the shooting
were planned.

Source D is the second extract from journalists Humphrey Tyler's
report. Within this source he talks about immediate time around the
shooting, it supports interpretation 1 by saying, "hundreds of women
rushes past…hundreds of children were running too…firing his Sten gun
into the crowd." It also supports the interpretation by saying "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 in
the huge compound…I saw no weapons…"Source D completely supports
interpretation 1 on all aspects, but we must look at how reliable
source d is, we can do this by cross-referencing the source with other
sources. When you cross-reference Source D with source E it is
possible to see that they agree on some points, like there was no
warning heard, source D, "I heard no warning to the crowd to
disperse." and source E "…police did not attempt to give a warning
before opening fire." That the police were shooting at the running
Sharpeville residents, source D " hundreds of women rushed past us,
some of them laughing … hundreds of kids were running too." And source
E "…nearly all those being treated in hospital had been shot in the
back." They both say that the crowd was unarmed, source D "I saw no
weapons…" and source E "…that the crowd was not armed even with
sticks."

Source E is from a statement made a few days after the Sharpeville
shootings by the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves. The
Source is from witness statements, it mainly states the facts found
out after the shooting and the witnesses opinions of what happened.
From my own research I have found out that the Anglican Bishop of
Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves, was white and originally from England.
He was part of the Anglican Church, which was very anti-apartheid.
Being part of the church would mean he would always try and tell the
truth, but it doesn't mean he couldn't or wouldn't lie. You can
cross-reference source E with other sources to get an idea on how
reliable it is. When you cross reference source E with sources D and
G, you find similarities between them. Source G agrees with source E
about the police firing into the Sharpeville residents backs as they
ran away. Source E "…nearly all those being treated in hospital had
been shot in the back." And source G " the police reloaded and fired
into their backs." "…only 30 police bullets had entered the bodies of
the dead and wounded from the front, while 155 had done so from the
back." Source G also agrees that no warning was given before the
police opened fire. Source E "…that the police did not attempt to give
a warning before opening fire." And source G "he gave no order for the
crowd to disperse." Source D also agrees with source E on some points,
like there was no warning heard "I heard no warning to the crowd to
disperse." That the police were shooting at the running Sharpeville
residents " hundreds of women rushed past us, some of them laughing …
hundreds of kids were running too." They both say that the crowd was
unarmed, source E "…that the crowd was not armed, even with sticks."
Source D "I saw no weapons…" Even though these sources agree with
source E, there are also sources, which disagree that have to be
looked at, like source H, J and I. While source E says that the crowd
unarmed "…the crowd was not armed." Source J disagrees by saying that
the crowd was armed "…the demonstrators attacked the police with
assorted weapons, including firearms." There is a disagreement between
sources on the number of people present, source E says, " All
witnesses contradicted the government claim that the police station
was besieged by 20,000 Africans" and source J "…about 20,000 natives…"
Source E and H disagree on the mood of the residents, source E says
"…the crowd was good natured and unarmed…" and source H says that "The
native mentality does not allow Africans to gather for peaceful
demonstrations." Source E supports interpretation 1 by saying, "The
witnesses said that the police lined up outside the police station,
and all fired together. All the statements agreed that the crowd was
not armed…police did not attempt to give a warning before opening
fire…that the crowd was good natured and unarmed and did not approach
the police station with violent intentions." This source, like source
D supports interpretation 1 completely.

Source G is an extract from the book "White Man, We Want To Talk To
You." Which was written by Denis Herbstein, foreign correspondent for
the BBC and The Sunday Times, in 1978, 18 years after the shootings.
We don't know if he was at Sharpeville when the shootings occurred, or
if he is writing from information he has found after the shootings.
His writing is not bias, just factual; he gives a general view of what
happened. He writes how the police were ordered to load five rounds
into their Sten guns, he writes there was no warning to the crowd but
there was no order to fire from the police. He says that two policemen
acted individually, with the other 50 policemen following their lead,
and as the Africans turned and fled the police reloaded and fired into
their backs. Source G say's "The Africans turned and fled. The police
reloaded and fired into their backs…only 30 police bullets entered the
bodies of the dead and wounded from the front, while 155 had done so
from the back." This supports what is said in interpretation 1.

Interpretation 2 say's, "The police were under attack and opened fire
in self defence." This was from a book published in South Africa in
1988, by an unknown author. The interpretation is saying that the
crowd was violent and the police were forced to open fire into the
crowd. Sources B, H, I and J all support interpretation 2.

Source B is from an English newspaper, published the day after the
shooting, the 22nd March. This source, like source A, doesn't talk
about the actual shooting but events that occurred before the
shootings. The source supports interpretation 2 by saying, "…police
station was virtually besieged by thousands of Africans…a motor car
from the council, which went through earlier in the morning, emerged
as a wreck and the people inside were injured."

Source H was written by colonel Pienaar (who was the police commander
at Sharpeville), speaking soon after the shooting. As he was part of
the police force, he would be enforcing apartheid rules and he is very
anti-black, this show through what he says in this source. "The native
mentality does not allow Africans together for peaceful
demonstrations. For them to gather means violence." When you cross
reference this source, it is possible to see that sources A, C, D, E,
and G contradict what source H is saying. For example, Source H says,
"The native mentality does not allow Africans to gather for peaceful
demonstrations. For them to gather means violence." While source A
contradicts this by saying "they were grinning and cheerful…" and
source D says "… some of them laughing…" and source E also say's "All
the witnesses said that the crowd was good natured…" Source H supports
interpretation 2 by saying "It all started when hordes of natives
surrounded the police station. My car was struck with as stone…" which
show that the natives were violent towards the police.

Source I was written by Dr Verwoerd, who at the time was the Prime
Minister of South Africa. He was giving his account of the events at
Sharpeville to Parliament on the 22nd March 1960, the day after the
shooting. Dr Verwoerd was involved in the introduction of apartheid in
South Africa, and so would be pro-apartheid and anti-black. When you
cross reference this source, it is possible to see that sources A, C,
D, E, and G contradict what source I is saying. For example, Source I
says "…and 25 people were killed and 50 wounded." While source G say's
"… sixty-nine Africans died…while 178 were wounded." and Source I
says, "…police had to open fire…" while source D says, "…police have
claimed they were desperate danger because the crowd was stoning them.
Yet only three policemen were reported to have been hit by stones."
and from the same source "…police also have said that the crowd was
armed with "ferocious weapons". I saw no weapons…" Source E also
contradicts source I on the same point by saying " All the statements
agreed that the crowd was not armed, even with sticks." Source I
supports interpretation 2 by saying, "Telephone wires were cut and
disturbances occurred. The police had to open fire…"

Source J is from a statement issued by the South Africa Embassy in
London on the 26th of March, five days after the shooting. The South
Africa embassy in London would have gotten their facts and information
from the South African government and Dr Verwoerd, the South African
Prime Minister, at that time. When you cross reference this source, it
is possible to see that sources A, C, D, E, and G contradict what
source J is saying. For example, Source J says "…planned
demonstrations of about 20,000 natives…" while source E says, "…that
the crowd was no more then 4,000." And source G which says "…the
crowd, numbering some 6,000…" and source J says "…demonstrators
attacked the police with an assortment of weapons, including firearms.
The demonstrators shot first and the police were forced to fir in
self-defence…" While source D says, "…police have claimed they were
desperate danger because the crowd was stoning them. Yet only three
policemen were reported to have been hit by stones." and from the same
source "…police also have said that the crowd was armed with
"ferocious weapons". I saw no weapons…" Source E also says " All the
statements agreed that the crowd was not armed, even with sticks."
Source J supports interpretation 2 by saying, "…in which the
demonstrators attacked the police with an assortment of weapons,
including firearms. The demonstrators shot first and the police were
forced to fir in self-defence…"

Source F is a Photograph taken after the shooting, later that day, by
an unknown photographer. Source F does not support interpretation1 or
interpretation 2. The photograph shows the aftermath of the shooting,
not the shooting itself or what the mode or mentality of the crowd
was, which means it is not possible to tell whether the police fired
in self-defence or not.

I believe that interpretation 1 is best supported by these sources.
Interpretation 1 is supported by more reliable sources then
interpretation 2, which is supported mainly by sources of questionable
reliability.
Return to 123HelpMe.com