Sharpeville Massacre free essay sample

SHARPEVILLE: BLOODY THE BATTLE THE EVENTS OF SHARPEVILLE (21 MARCH 1960), AND THE THREE WEEKS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IT, HAVE OFTEN BEEN DESCRIBED AS A DECISIVE TURNING-POINT IN MODERN SOUTH AFRICAN HISTORY. DOES A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE HEAR OUT THAT VIEW? â€Å" one little boy had on an old blanket coat, which he held up behind his head, thinking, perhaps, that it might save him from the bullets. Some of the children, hardly as tall as the grass, were leaping like rabbits. Some were shot, too. Still the shooting went on † -Humphrey Tyler, Witness and Assistant Editor of Drum Magazine The Sharpeville massacre of 1960 and the events it precipitated had a profound and long lasting effect on South African society and the already volatile political climate of the time. This essay will contend that the unrestrained violence upon a peaceful demonstration proved to be a watershed moment that was decisive in determining the immediate future of the anti-Apartheid struggle, as well as determining the future direction of the Apartheid regime in South Africa. We will write a custom essay sample on Sharpeville Massacre or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This essay will detail the massacre, the events that lead up to it and it will highlight the responses of the government, resistance movement and international community. I will argue that these responses had a long lasting effect on the future direction of the apartheid state and anti-apartheid movement, thus making it a decisive turning point in modern South African history. Before one can appreciate the significance of the Sharpeville massacre, one must understand its historical background and political context. From 26 May 1948, South Africa was ruled by the National Party government, who came to power on the political platform of separateness, or Apartheid. As the rest of the western world moved to end racial segregation, South Africa entered a phase that saw sustained and institutionalised racism at the hands of a government who were representing the minority white race. Christopher Landsberg describes this period impassionedly, stating ‘the social engineering secured for whites a virtual monopoly of power-political, economic and social. Apartheid deliberately created poverty and racial inequalities (that) was at beast a sham democracy. ’ It was the institutionalised racism, however, that eventually lead to the unique set of circumstances that enabled the tragedy at Sharpeville to occur. Apartheid was implemented through a series of evolving laws from 1949 that directly affected all aspects of life for coloured people. Several laws already existed along racial lines, however, it was the National Party government that formalised its social policy on such laws. Prominent examples include the Mixed Marriage Act of 1949, the Immorality Act and the Population Registration Act of 1950 and the Bantu Education Act of 1953. These dictated that whites and non-whites could not marry or have sex, and that each person was officially designated a colour and race (and ultimately an identity) at the government’s discretion. Many families were broken up under these laws, in which some mixed raced families were reclassified, greatly disrupting –if not ending- many family relationships. To combat any opposition, the government created the Criminal Law Amendment Act which made any person associating with anyone who was protesting or repealing any law liable for criminal charges. The National Party also increased all forms of censorship and banned any organisation or publication pertaining to have communist links or sympathies, including several workers’ union, which had significant impacts for the predominately Black labour force. This was in line with international Cold War sentiment and, thus, the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 was not seen as extreme. Understandably, resistance from oppressed racial groups intensified with time as these laws became more repressive and as their lives became increasingly restricted. Anti-apartheid and racial rights organisations such as the African National Congress (ANC) continued to rise to prominence with powerful doctrines such as the Programme of Action which was adopted in 1949 in Bloemfontein. The ANC’s ten point Freedom Charter of 1955 was another influential call to arms for the repressed groups of South Africa, inspiring them to take more direct mass action. However, the goals of the ANC did not by any means represent those of everyone in the anti-Apartheid struggle. This point was emphasised when the Pan African Congress (PAC) broke away from the ANC in November 1958, looking to represent a larger section of the South African population that were discontent with the apartheid regime. The most notable difference between the two groups was the PAC’s willingness to embrace the notion of multiracialism as a realistic political platform for the future, as opposed to the ANC’s purely Africanist objectives. The PAC also attracted the disenchanted youth demographic, who were eager to commit to their ideological beliefs with action. The PAC also focussed the need to assert their â€Å"African personality† and, as Sobukwe warned, ‘that acceptance of any indignity, any insult, any humiliation, is acceptance of inferiority’. Both groups, however, were inspired by Ghandi’s peaceful approach to resistance which had prevailed in India and, importantly, insisted upon peaceful, non-violent demonstrations at all times. Significant demonstrations in a developing Programme of Action succeeding the Defiance Campaign included a 1957 workers’ stay-at-home, the bus boycotts of Alexandra and Everton proved to be both successful and to a large extent, peaceful. The Sharpeville massacre occurred in unique circumstances, and proved to be a tragic event that would shape the future of the apartheid struggle. As both the PAC and the ANC struggled with the limitations of peaceful protests and police became increasingly nervous with greater responsibilities, a political boiling pot had begun to simmer. Gerhart contends that competition between the now rival anti-apartheid groups was steadily growing, which contributed to the rushed planning of events and relative level of disorganisation. Ross argues that these organisations also underestimated the ruthlessness of the police state mentality that was being hardened across South Africa. However, as Gerhart cites, Sobukwe wrote to the commissioner of police, Major General Rademeyer, assuring him of a peaceful protest and declared that crowds would disperse if given adequate warning and acknowledged the threat of ‘trigger happy, African hating’ police. In early 1960, both the PAC and the ANC announced individual plans to stage a mass, nationwide campaign against the humiliating Pass Laws. This would primarily entail the marching of large numbers of people to police stations, without their passes, to hand themselves in for arrest. The intention was to instigate major civil reforms and highlight the importance of personal freedoms. The brochure calling for the campaign against the Pass Laws (as issued by Sobukwe, a leader of the PAC) stated ‘NO BAIL! NO DEFENCE! NO FINE! ’ which exemplified their willingness for ‘SERVICE, SACRIFICE AND SUFFERING’ for their cause. On March 21, 1960 in the Transvaal region, a PAC stronghold, up to 20000 people converged on the Everton police station and approximately 4000 on Vanderbijlpark’s where they either burnt their passes or surrendered to police. As assured, most of these crowds diverged after warning shots were fired or threatening low flying military jets passed. However, Sharpeville was significantly different due to the police’s poor community relations. Raids were a daily occurrence in Sharpeville, corruption was rife, unemployment was high, housing costs were also disproportionately higher and there had been a significant rise in the influx of arrests and prosecutions in the area, all of which contributed to a more difficult life for Africans in the immediate area. 000 people converged on the Sharpeville station, and refused to leave as those in the other protests had. Several testimonies stated that the crowd was waiting for a top official who was rumoured to address them. Witness accounts vary as to what happened next, with some claiming protesters were fighting or throwing rocks (as in the Langa township where two people had been shot) whilst others stated that they were entirely peaceful. The police were also nervous after 9 police officers had recently been killed by a demonstration that had become violent in Cato Manor. Rusty Berstein states, ‘Suddenly in the midday heat, someone’s nerve cracks. A policeman inside the fence raises his rifle and opens fire. That becomes the signal for the whole police party to blaze away against the people, who flee for their lives. Whether the firing started in panic or on an officer’s orders is never established ’ 69 people are killed and a further 180 are estimated to be injured, and almost all were shot in the back. Some people were shot in nearby cafes by stray bullets, as were people in their yards and in front of the local ministers’ house. The New York Times quoted a senior police official who stated at the time, ‘I don’t know how many we’ve shot if they do these things, they must learn the hard way. ’ The significance of such an event cannot be underestimated. The events of the next three weeks and immediate reactions from the government, resistance movement and international community had long lasting implications for the apartheid regime. It were these implications that highlight how the massacre at Sharpeville -and three weeks immediately following it- was undoubtedly a decisive, watershed moment in modern South African history. The anti-apartheid movement responded to the massacre with grief, anger, disbelief and an overall new resolve to continue to resist the now murderous regime. As Ben Turok wrote in his autobiography, ‘Sharpeville had become one of the most symbolic events in South Africa’s liberation struggle. It was to ignite the anger of millions of oppressed and those with a conscience in South Africa and around the world’. The PAC gained significant amounts of public sympathy in the wake of the massacre, and support for the general aims of the ANC also increased. A national stay-at-home was announced to mourn the dead and was held for a week, beginning the day after the massacre; this effectively bought many businesses and industries to a standstill as the main source of labour stayed at home. Both the PAC and the ANC encouraged this strike whilst advocating non-violence. Police continued with brutal raids, they targeted the survivors of the massacre, and shot at those attempting to escape as police broke into their homes. This proved to be the main catalyst for the infamous march of 30000 in Cape Town. Lead by Philip Kgosana, a 23 year old who had recently dropped out of university to focus on political activities for the PAC, the march was intended to finish at the South African Houses of parliament. Police officials convinced him that it would be safer for the crowd to disperse in return for some concessions to be made and a meeting with the Minister for Justice that afternoon. When Kgosana returned for his meeting, he was arrested. Arguably the most significant impact of the Sharpeville massacre, however, was the realisation that non-violent resistance would prove futile in a police state such as South Africa. As Thompson asserts, it ‘was a watershed moment in modern South African history. nonviolent methods had achieved nothing except a series of defeats at the hands of a violent state’. Sharpeville marked the militarisation of the resistance movement and the creation of military wings to the ANC and the PAC. The ANC formed the Umkhonto we Sizwe (the Spear of the Nation, which would be lead by Nelson Mandela) and the PAC formed Poqo (Pure), both of which began a bombing campaign against industrial and government sites. As Leach suggests, the resistance movement’s direct response to Sharpeville marked the beginning of endemic violence in South Africa. The government’s response to the massacre -which effectively shaped the events immediately following it- also contributed to why it was such a decisive turning point for South Africa. They temporarily suspended pass arrests and focussed all resources on armoured patrols of potentially troublesome spots. Almost immediately, important leaders of the ANC and PAC were arrested under the Riotous Assemblies Act and the Public Safety Act, which contributed to the emergency situation. These arrests effectively paralysed the main resistance organisations in the short term, as up to the third or fourth layer of organisation had been removed. The day of Kgosona’s march in Cape Town (30 March) a state of emergency was declared. The timing of this was unquestionably impeccable. Just after Kgosona had dispersed the threatening crowds and he returned for his meeting with the Minister for Justice, the State of Emergency regulations enabled him to be arrested. The PAC and ANC were officially banned on April 6 under the Unlawful Organisation Act, sending all levels of organisation underground. The government was also forced to respond on an international level, with the South African representative to the United Nations leaving the table when pointed discussions surrounding the Sharpeville massacre arose. Amid criticism from British Prime Minister Macmillan after the massacre, the South African Prime Minister Verwoerd declared South Africa would become a republic. Similarly, the international response to the massacre and the events immediately following it proved to have lasting significance. The international condemnation and outcry marked a decisive turning point, whereby the global community began to actively speak out against the apartheid state. The New York Times adequately reflected international outrage at the shootings in an editorial the following day. It stated that ‘a policy which degrades the great majority of the people of a nation is certain to lead to tragedy Do the South Africans think that the rest of the world will ignore such a massacre? ’ Countries from across the world expressed disapproval of the events and of apartheid more broadly. Landsberg notes that strong counter reactions internationally included the establishment of the UN Special Committee Against Apartheid as well as the adoption of resolutions 134 of 1960 at the United Nations, deploring the South African government and its actions. The United States called the massacre ‘regrettable’ and a violation of the United Nations Charter on human rights. As previously discussed, another long term effect of the massacre was South Africa eventually becoming a republic after condemnation from Britain. The Sharpeville massacre drew international attention and criticism to the repressive and violent regime that existed in South Africa. This proved to be the first of many international political steps to end apartheid, thus cementing the massacre’s place as a decisive historical turning point. Critics argue that the Sharpeville massacre was not a decisive turning point and was instead a singular ineffectual moment at a volatile time. Gerhart notes that similar protests and boycotts later in 1960 and 1961 proved to be ‘abortive,’ indicating that a lasting impression had not been made, just as it had failed to inspire success in similar actions. Resistance became increasingly difficult after the banning of the ANC and PAC, as well as the arrest of a large proportion of their leadership groups. This is supported by the fact that it took another 30 years for the apartheid regime to fall, and that was only after international pressure and sanctions. However, these arguments fail to engage with the symbolic importance and nature of Sharpeville and the events that followed. As Frankel simply states, ‘Sharpeville is crucial to South African history in the last century because it represents an end, a beginning, a social commentary and an evaluation’. Sharpeville was not the bloodiest, most brutal or surprising attack on Blacks in South Africa’s history throughout Apartheid. Nor did it have the most dramatic international response or incite the largest protests in South Africa’s history. However, it was a moment that represented a direct change to how blacks, whites and the rest of the world viewed apartheid and gave both sides a new resolve that directly influenced the future events and ideologies surrounding apartheid. This in itself proves the massacre and ensuing events were a decisive turning point in South Africa’s history, and the power of this should not be underestimated. One may argue that the massacre and related events changed little in South Africa; however, this grossly miscalculates the importance of inspiring collective emotion, hope and emboldened desire when Africans had little else to fight with. After the massacre, the resistance movement was forced underground and turned militant, changing the battleground dramatically. The government asserted its resolve and police state mentality. The international community awoke to the realities of apartheid and began a long campaign against it. These are all long term effects of the massacre and the events that immediately followed it, which prove that it was a decisive turning point in modern South African history. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Anon. ‘50 Killed in South Africa as Police Fire on Rioters’, New York Times, March 22, 1960. Anon, ‘Macmillan is Assailed’ New York Times, 21 March 1960. Anon, ‘South Africa Quits Debate; Disputes UN Jurisdiction’ New York Times, 2 April 1960. Anon, ‘The Tragedy at Sharpeville’ New York Times, 22 March 1960. ANC. ‘The Freedom Charter’, as cited in Thirty Years of the Freedom Charter, edited by Suttner, R. and Cronin, J. Johannesburg: Ravan Press, 1986. Lodge, H. C. (US representative at the UN), as quoted in ‘Excerpts from Addresses in UN Security Council on South Africa Issue’ New York Times, 31 March 1960. PAC. ‘Document 47: Calling the Nation! ’ editied by Karis and Carter G. , From Protest to Challenge: A Documentary History of African Politics in South Africa 1882 -1964, Vol. 3, 1977. Secondary Sources Bernstein, Rusty, Memory Against Forgetting: Memoirs from a Life in South African Politics 1938-1964. London: Penguin, 1999. Clark Nancy L. and Worger, William H. South Africa: The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. London: Pearson Education Limited, 2004. Dubrow, Saul. The African National Congress, 2000. Frankel, Phillip. An Ordinary Atrocity: Sharpeville and Its Massacre. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Gerhart, G. Black Power in South Africa: The evolution of an ideology, 1978. Landsberg, Christopher. The Quiet Diplomacy of Liberation: International Politics and South Africa’s Transition. Johannesburg: Jacuna Media, 2004. Leach, Graham. South Africa: No Easy Path to Peace. London: Routledge, 1986. Lodge, Tom. Black Politics in South Africa since 1945, London: Longman Group, 1983. Maharaj, Mac and Kathrada, Ahmed. Mandela: The Authorised Portrait. Rowville, Victoria: Five Mile Press Pty Ltd, 2006. Peffer, John ‘Mellow Yellow: Image, violence, and play in apartheid South Africa’ in Violence and Non-Violence in Africa edited by Ahluwalia, Pal, Bethlehem, Louise and Ginio Ruth. New York: Routledge, 2007. Ross, Robert. A Concise History of South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Thompson, Leonard. A History of South Africa. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Turok, Ben. Nothing but the Truth: Behind the ANC’s Struggle Politics. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers, 2003.

Using a Sample Essay About Innovation

Using a Sample Essay About InnovationSample essays on innovation are an excellent way to help you write a powerful and useful essay. When you take the time to write a sample essay, you can start to see what the essay will look like before you begin writing it. The actual writing process can be made more effective by the use of the sample essay. There are a number of different ways that you can use a sample essay to guide your own writing.Using a sample essay is also a good way to keep your essay focused. You don't want to try to incorporate too many ideas into your essay that is too broad. On the other hand, you don't want to have a bunch of ideas for every sentence because you don't want your essay to feel too unorganized. Instead, you want to keep the focus on one particular aspect of innovation. In this way, your essay will be easier to follow and will have a better flow.Writing an essay is much more difficult when you try to cover more than one topic at a time. This is why using a sample essay is a very helpful tool. You can use it as a jumping off point to get your thoughts in order. This will make it much easier to begin writing a few paragraphs at a time instead of going straight to the part where you explain something.If you want to write your own essay, then you might consider using a sample essay as a guide. You can use it as a way to brainstorm what you want to say about innovation. You might find that a specific aspect of innovation does not show up in the sample essay, but that is okay because you will still be able to use it to shape your own essay.You should always remember that while a sample essay may seem like an excellent idea for a guide, you should not use it as the basis for your essay. You should always start with your own ideas and build upon them to form your own essay. A sample essay can give you a lot of ideas about what to include, but you should always start with your own original thoughts.A sample essay can also be a great way to s tart writing your own essay. After you've done a bit of research, you might be able to use the information to write a good essay. You might be surprised at how many interesting things you can uncover just by doing some research. This can be a great thing to use as a starting point for your own essay.As you get closer to writing your essay, you might find that you have some problems that need to be worked out. This is especially true if you are unsure of how to proceed. Taking a look at a sample essay can be a great way to get some ideas.It is always important to think carefully about the kind of essay you are trying to write. Some people do not know where to begin when they want to write a good essay. Taking the time to read a sample essay is a great way to get some ideas. This will give you the knowledge you need to start writing the perfect essay.