D Lyndon. Henry Compton School. November 2000
ASSIGNMENT TWO: OBJECTIVE 3
(a) Study source A.
What can you learn from Source A about the policy of the Pan-African Congress?
(3)
(b) Study sources A and B and use your own knowledge.
How far does the evidence of sources A and B suggest that there were differences between the aims of the PAC and ANC? (7)
(c) Study source C.
How useful is source C in showing the differences between the ANC and PAC in preparing for the Pass Law Campaign? (6)
(d) Study source D.
What does source D tell you about the situation in Sharpeville before the shooting began? (4)
(e) Study sources E and F.
To what extent do sources E and F agree about the events that took place at Sharpeville? (7)
(f) Study source G.
How reliable is source G in finding out about the Sharpeville Massacre? (6)
(g) Study sources G and H.
How far does the evidence in Source H agree with the evidence in Source G about the events at Sharpeville? (5)
(h) Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain whether you agree with the following statement:
‘Sharpeville was more an accident than a deliberate attempt to shoot black Africans (12)
(Total: 50 marks)
SHARPEVILLE
COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENT
MARKSCHEME
ASSIGNMENT TWO: OBJECTIVE 3
1. What can you learn from Source A about the policy of the Pan-African Congress?
Target: Comprehension of and inference from a source
Level 1: Information taken from source A at face value e.g. Africans should rule in Africa, democratic rule of the African majority. (1-2)
Level 2: Developed statement showing understanding of ‘Africanist’ ideas e.g. loyalty to Africa, government by Africans for Africans (3)
2. Use sources A and B and your own knowledge. How far does the evidence of sources A and B suggest that there were differences between the aims of the PAC and ANC?
Target: Cross referencing of sources to reach a judgement
Level 1: Shows differences of content at face value e.g. Source A says Africa for the Africans, Source B says South Africa belongs to all, black and white. (1-2)
Level 2: As level 1 but cross-refers explicitly to show differences e.g. Source A promotes Africanist ideas - Africa for the Africans by Africans, whereas Source B is multiculturalist - South Africa belongs to all black and white. Also different interpretations of democracy; Source A - democratic rule of African majority, Source B - democratic state based on will of people … without distinction of colour. (3-4)
Level 3: Developed explanation reaching a judgement about extent of agreement e.g. As level 2 but uses own knowledge to show agreement that changes were needed in South Africa. (5-7)
3. How useful is source C in showing the differences between the ANC and PAC in preparing for the Pass Law Campaign?
Target: Evaluation of utility of sources for an enquiry
Level 1: Simple statements about value based on content or nature of source - ANC were organised, PAC disorganised, source is useful because written by ANC member. (1)
Level 2: Developed statements about usefulness drawing inferences from nature and/or content of sources e.g. Source is useful because it shows that ANC were preparing carefully for a co-ordinated campaign, with ‘ a carefully timed climax’. The PAC was only a small group with limited ideas. (2-3)
Level 3: Developed explanation based on content AND nature explaining that source is limited in usefulness because written by unknown ANC member who is opposed to the methods used by PAC. (4-6)
4. What does source D tell you about the situation in Sharpeville before the shooting began?
Target: Comprehension of and inference from a source
Level 1: Information taken from the source at face value: there are Africans gathering together, there is police van with armed police facing the crowd. (1-2)
Level 2: Developed statement that puts size and mood of crowd in to the context of what happened later. Students may cross-refer to other sources that portray different interpretations of the crowd at Sharpeville. (3-4)
5. To what extent do sources E and F agree about the events that took place at Sharpeville?
Target: Cross-referencing to reach a conclusion
Level 1: Simple statement showing areas of agreement, e.g. Source D describes crowds of people faced by the police, Source E describes Africans gathering around the police station. (1)
Level 2: Developed statement showing agreement (as Level 1) and disagreement by cross-referencing explicitly e.g. Source D is focused on individual experiences of people being shot, refers explicitly to the lack of police warning and police claims about being attacked. Source E is a general account focusing on crowd numbers. (2-3)
Level 3: Developed explanation reaching a conclusion about the extent of agreement e.g. sees that both sources are about the events at Sharpeville but are focused on different aspects of the incident. (4-5)
Level 4: Sustained explanation reaching a conclusion as Level 3 but also looks at context of sources - source E written for a black audience, source F from an Archbishop. (6-7)
6. How reliable is source G in finding out about the Sharpeville Massacre?
Target: Evaluation of utility of sources for an enquiry
Level 1: Simple statement - the source is reliable because it was written by a member of the government, primary source. (1-2)
Level 2: Developed statement drawing inferences from nature and/or content of sources - as level 1 but also challenges utility - government propaganda, ‘demonstrators shot first’
(3-4)
Level 3: Developed analysis of strengths and weaknesses e.g. whilst the source is biased it allows an insight into the attitude of the SA government (5-6)
7. How far does the evidence in Source H agree with the evidence in Source G about the events at Sharpeville?
Target: Cross-referencing of sources to reach a judgement
Level 1: Simple statements showing areas of agreement e.g. source H said that the crowd were violent, source G said the crowd were using weapons. (1-2)
Level 2: Developed statement showing agreement and disagreement by cross-referencing explicitly e.g. source H said the crowd was singing and laughing whereas source G said the demonstrators attacked the crowd. (3-4)
Level 3: Developed explanation reaching a judgement about extent of agreement e.g. as level 2 but also looks at context of sources to explain different interpretations. (5)
8. Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain whether you agree with the following statement: ‘Sharpeville was more an accident than a deliberate attempt to shoot black Africans’
Target: Analysis of sources and recall of knowledge to make a judgement about a historical interpretation
Level 1: Simple statements about interpretation supported by either sources or knowledge e.g. agrees that it was a deliberate shooting - Source E ‘I saw no weapons’.
(1-3)
Level 2: Developed statements offering points agreeing with the interpretation using sources and supported by relevant knowledge e.g. As level 1 but takes from a variety of sources and own knowledge (4-5)
Level 3: Developed explanation giving a judgement on the interpretation making confident use of the sources and supported by appropriately selected knowledge e.g. Is able to show both sides of the argument by referring to sources G and H and uses own knowledge to explain context of anti pass law protests (6-9)
Level 4: Sustained argument giving a reasoned choice about the interpretation using sources as evidence and supported by precisely selected knowledge e.g. as Level 3 but shows awareness of wider context - white supremacist attitudes, fear of Africans, ‘police state’ (10-12)
SOURCE A: (from Robert Sobukwe, President and founder of the Pan African
Congress)
Government of the Africans by the Africans and for the Africans, with everybody who owes his only loyalty to Africa and is prepared to accept the democratic rule of the African majority being regarded as African.
SOURCE B: (from the Freedom Charter of the ANC, published in 1955)
We, the people of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know … that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people … that only a democratic state based on the will of the people, can secure to all their birthright without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief … we the people of South Africa, black and white, together equals, countrymen and brothers, adopt this freedom charter.
SOURCE C: (about the preparations for the Pass Law campaign, written by an
unnamed ANC member from a school textbook, Apartheid , by Ian Phillips, published by Collins Educational, 1992)
It was our intention not to launch the new campaign until our people were thoroughly ready to participate. But the PAC had also in mind a programme of action against the passes. Their method was to go to the police stations, leaving their passes at home and asked to be arrested. Taking the country as a whole they were organised only in a few centers. Robert Sobukwe called an all Africans to follow him in leaving their passes at home. His call cut across ANC plans for an orderly, carefully mounted campaign with a deliberately timed climax.
SOURCE D: Crowds gathering in Sharpeville on the morning of March 21 1960
(from a school textbook, Apartheid , by Ian Phillips, published by Collins Educational, 1992.)
SOURCE E: (A report of what happened at Sharpeville, 21 March 1960 from Drum
Magazine, a magazine for Black readers.)
Then the shooting started. We heard the chatter of a machine-gun, then another, then another … One woman was hit about ten yards from our car. Her companion, a young man, went back when she fell. He though she had stumbled. He looked at the blood on his hands and said: ‘My God she’s gone!’ … Hundreds of children were running too. Before the shooting I heard no warning to the crowd to disperse. There was no warning volley.
The police have claimed they were in desperate danger because the crowd was stoning them. The police have also said that the crowd was armed with ‘ferocious weapons’ which littered the area after they fled. I saw no weapons, although I looked carefully and afterwards studied the photographs of the death scene.
SOURCE F: (from Ambrose Reeves, Bishop of Johannesburg, describing the events
leading up to the shootings)
Gradually the news spread through the township that a statement concerning passes was to be made by some important person during the day at the police station and from about 8 am Africans started to gather around it. They waited patiently for the expected announcement and gradually the crowd grew.
Various estimates have been made of the crowd, and it would seem that, although there must have been a gathering of some thousands of Africans, press reports and the South African police certainly over-estimated the numbers. The Prime Minister read the official report on Sharpeville to the House of Assembly … In this report, the allegation was made that there were 20,000 people around the police station. Photographs show that it is unlikely that there were more than 5,000 people at any one time.
SOURCE G: (from a statement by the South African High Commissioner in
London, 1960)
According to information now available, the disturbances at Sharpeville on Monday resulted from a planned demonstration of about 20,000 natives in which demonstrators attacked the police with assorted weapons including firearms. The demonstrators shot first, and the police were forced to fire in self-defence and avoid even more tragic results. The allegation of the United Nations, that the demonstrators were unarmed and peaceful, is completely untrue.
SOURCE H: (from a summary of the findings of the Judicial Inquiry into the
Sharpeville Massacre)
1. The size of the crowd was disputed; police evidence claimed that the crowd was around 20,000. Other witnesses claimed it was no more than 5,000.
2. The police evidence claimed that the crowd was in a violent and hostile mood.
3. Charles Channor (a press photographer) claimed the crowd was in a holiday mood, singing and laughing but noisy.
4. (Police) Captain Pienaar claimed that he could only force a way through the hostile crowd with great difficulty in armoured cars.
5. Another police officer claimed to have no difficulty and said that many people were just sitting on the side of the road.