Increasing Violence: The Sharpeville Massacre (1960) and the Decision to Adopt the Armed Struggle
- The Sharpeville Massacre marked a turning point in the anti-apartheid struggle.
- On 21 March 1960, police opened fire on a peaceful crowd protesting pass laws in Sharpeville, killing 69 unarmed people and injuring 186.
- The brutality of the massacre shocked the world and forced the ANC to reconsider its non-violent approach to resistance.
- The rise of Africanist ideology led to a major split in the liberation movement.
- Dissatisfied with the ANC’s multiracial approach, Africanist members had broken away in 1959 to form the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), advocating for Black self-reliance and a return of land and power to indigenous Africans.
The Pan Africanist Congress (PAC)
- The PAC was formed in 1959 by Africanist members who split from the African National Congress (ANC), believing the ANC had become too influenced by non-African groups and white communists.
- The PAC promoted the idea that South Africa rightfully belonged to its Black majority and rejected multiracial alliances, emphasizing African self-reliance, unity, and cultural identity.
- The party’s founding president, Robert Sobukwe, was a charismatic and principled leader who advocated for non-violent protest, such as the anti-pass campaign that led to the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960.
- Compared to the ANC at the time, the PAC pursued a more direct and assertive strategy, often organizing separate protests and emphasizing immediate mass action against apartheid policies.
What happened?
- The ANC was preparing an anti-pass protest for June 1960 in Sharpeville, a township 60 kilometers (37 miles) south of Johannesburg, heavily populated and industrialized.
- The PAC pre-empted it by organizing their own demonstration on 21 March. Protesters were to show up at police stations without their pass books and offer themselves for arrest.
- Despite the peaceful intent of the protest, police fired into the crowd. Most victims were shot in the back as they tried to flee.
- Eyewitnesses denied police claims of provocation, and the incident drew strong condemnation both domestically and internationally.
- The police’s deadly response in Sharpeville triggered national and global outrage.
- Historiographical perspectives can be built on primary sources like accounts of an event.
- The Sharpeville Massacre of 21 March 1960 remains one of the most controversial events in South African history, partly because of the conflicting narratives about what sparked the shooting. Here are the two main opposing accounts:
- Official Police Narrative put forward by the government and the police claims that the massacre happened because officers were provoked by a violent crowd:
- According to their version, a protester allegedly attacked a policeman, and soon after, other demonstrators began throwing stones.
- Police said they feared that the station was about to be overrun, and that they opened fire in self-defense to protect themselves from a perceived mob threat.
- But according to eyewitnesses and survivors narrative the shooting was unprovoked and intentional:
- Eyewitnesses claimed the crowd was peaceful, even festive, singing songs and chanting slogans, and that there was no violent confrontation before the shooting began.
- The majority of victims were shot in the back, indicating they were fleeing, not attacking. This contradicts the police's claim of self-defense.
- Official Police Narrative put forward by the government and the police claims that the massacre happened because officers were provoked by a violent crowd:
Use these clashing narratives to think about these possible questions:
- To what extent can bias in eyewitness accounts and official records influence our understanding of historical events?
- How do emotion and political context affect the reliability of knowledge claims in history?
