Paper 1 - Rights and Protest Questionbank

Source M

Statement from a police officer involved in the Sharpeville events, from an interview with the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), March 1960.

“On that day, we were surrounded by thousands. The protestors were shouting, some throwing stones. We were armed, yes, but we were also afraid. Orders were not clear. We didn’t know if we should wait or act. Then shots were fired, not from my rifle, but from someone nearby. The crowd panicked, and so did we. The firing didn’t stop for what felt like forever. I regret what happened, but at the time we believed we were defending ourselves.”

Source N

A political cartoon published in an anti‑apartheid newsletter, 23 March 1960.

Source O

Statement by Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia Trial, 1964.

“The decision to adopt armed struggle was not made lightly. For years we tried every peaceful method, petitions, protests, strikes. But the state answered with violence: Sharpeville showed us that unarmed protest could mean death. The formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe was a direct response to this brutality. We sought not chaos, but justice. Our sabotage aimed at property, not people. It was apartheid that left us no other choice.”

Source P

Editorial from the British newspaper The Guardian, published 23 March 1960.

“The events in Sharpeville should shock the conscience of the international community. The South African government claims it is maintaining order, yet its methods are those of tyranny. Shooting down unarmed demonstrators, many in the back, cannot be justified under any law. If apartheid continues to rule through fear, the world must consider sanctions and isolation as tools of justice.”

Source M

Testimony of Fannie Lou Hamer, civil rights activist, given before the Credentials Committee at the Democratic National Convention, August 1964.

“In June of ’63, I tried to register to vote in Mississippi. I was fired from my job, beaten in jail, and threatened just for wanting a say in the laws that governed me. The police told me, 'You're messing with white folks' business.' They used cattle prods on us in that jail. I wasn’t the only one - this is how it is for Black folks who try to vote. We aren’t just kept out of the polls - we’re kept in fear.”

Source N

This 1965 editorial cartoon by Herbert L. Block (Herblock) was published in the Washington Post on May 20, 1965.

Source O

Excerpt from a report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, 1959.

“In many southern states, African Americans face systemic barriers to voting: literacy tests with arbitrary grading, ‘understanding clauses’, poll taxes, and outright intimidation. County registrars apply these standards unevenly. In Alabama, less than 10% of eligible Black citizens are registered, compared to over 80% of whites. Voter suppression is a deliberate tool used to maintain white political dominance.”

Source P

Excerpt from a speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., delivered in Selma, Alabama, March 1965.

“We are here to say to the white men who deny our brothers the vote, that we will no longer be turned around. We will march, we will register, we will vote - no matter the dogs, no matter the clubs. This movement is not about anger. It is about dignity. The ballot is our right - not a gift from the oppressor. We will have it. And we will have it peacefully, but relentlessly.”

Source M

Extract from the South African Government Gazette, July 1952.

The so-called Defiance Campaign is nothing more than a coordinated attempt to undermine law and order in the Union of South Africa. Volunteers are being instructed to break laws that have long ensured the orderly coexistence of our different racial groups. The Native population has been misled into thinking that they can defy Parliament without consequence. The government will not tolerate anarchy or the deliberate provocation of the police. Harsh penalties, including imprisonment, will be applied to all who seek to disturb the peace and stability of this nation.

Source N

Extract from a speech by Albert Luthuli, president of the ANC, December 1952.

We launched the Defiance Campaign because we could no longer accept the injustices of apartheid legislation. Our volunteers, both African and Indian, have been trained in nonviolence. They march into railway stations, post offices, and other segregated places to demand dignity for all South Africans. This campaign is not born of hatred, but of a desire for equality and freedom. We know there will be arrests, and we are ready to fill the prisons if necessary, for we believe that suffering willingly for justice is more powerful than the might of an unjust state.

Source O

Photograph of Defiance Campaign volunteers entering a “Europeans Only” entrance in Johannesburg, 1952.

Source P

Excerpt from historian Gail Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa (1978).

The Defiance Campaign of 1952 represented a turning point in South Africa’s liberation struggle. While the immediate impact on apartheid laws was minimal, the campaign was significant in other respects. It demonstrated that the ANC could mobilise thousands in coordinated, disciplined protest. It also built unprecedented cooperation between Africans and Indians, uniting previously separate struggles. The campaign revealed both the possibilities and the limits of nonviolent resistance under a repressive regime: while it raised the ANC’s profile, it also provoked harsher laws and strengthened the security state. Above all, the campaign convinced a new generation of activists, including Nelson Mandela, that mass action could challenge apartheid, even if change would be long and difficult.

Source M

Statement from the South African Minister of Justice, published in the Rand Daily Mail, March 1960.

The gathering at Sharpeville was not a peaceful demonstration, as some have falsely claimed. It was an unlawful assembly designed to provoke disorder and challenge the authority of the state. Thousands of Africans surrounded the police station, shouting and threatening our officers. Our police showed admirable restraint under extreme provocation. When the crowd surged forward, force had to be used to protect the lives of our men. Any casualties that occurred are the responsibility of the agitators who incited the mob, not the police who were defending themselves. South Africa is a land of law and order, and we will not allow Communist-inspired chaos to undermine our society. The government will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain peace and protect our people from intimidation.

Source N

Excerpt from a statement by Robert Sobukwe, leader of the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), April 1960.

We called upon our people to present themselves peacefully at police stations, unarmed, and without passes, in order to show the world the injustice of the pass laws. In Sharpeville, men and women came in their thousands, singing freedom songs, with no weapons in their hands. They were met not with dialogue but with bullets. Sixty-nine of our brothers and sisters were killed, many shot in the back as they fled. This was not an accident; it was the deliberate use of terror by the state to crush our movement. Sharpeville has revealed to all who doubted that apartheid is maintained not by consent but by violence. We remain committed to the struggle, but let the world know that the days of pleading for justice may be coming to an end.

Source O

Photograph of police examining bodies after the Sharpeville shootings, March 21, 1960.

Source P

United Nations Security Council Resolution 134, April 1960.

The Security Council, having considered the situation arising from the shootings at Sharpeville, expresses its deep concern at the situation in the Union of South Africa. The Council deplores the policies and actions of the Government of South Africa which have led to international friction and the loss of life. It recognizes that the situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The Council calls upon the Government of South Africa to abandon apartheid and racial discrimination, to initiate measures of conciliation, and to respect the rights and freedoms of all its people. The Security Council affirms the need for the United Nations to remain seized of the matter until the situation is resolved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Source M

Excerpt from the Rand Daily Mail, June 1955

The so-called Congress of the People is nothing more than a gathering of agitators determined to sow discord in South Africa. Under the pretense of representing “the people,” the African National Congress and its allies have drawn up a document that would destroy the foundations of our society. The so-called Freedom Charter calls for equality of races, land redistribution, and the nationalization of industries, proposals inspired by foreign socialist doctrines. It is clear that this charter is a blueprint for chaos, intended to undermine our traditions and hand power to those who would ruin South Africa’s stability and prosperity. Loyal citizens must reject this dangerous propaganda before it poisons the minds of the gullible.

Source N

Excerpt from the Freedom Charter, adopted at Kliptown, June 26, 1955

We, the People of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know: South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white. No government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people. The people shall govern! All national groups shall have equal rights! The land shall be shared among those who work it! The people shall share in the country’s wealth! All shall be equal before the law! All shall enjoy human rights! These freedoms we pledge to strive for, side by side, until they are won.

Source O

Photograph of the Congress of the People at Kliptown, June 1955.

Source P

Excerpt from historian Tom Lodge, Sharpeville: An Apartheid Massacre and Its Consequences (2011).

The Freedom Charter was a milestone in the evolution of the liberation struggle. For the first time, a broad coalition of South Africans articulated a shared vision of a democratic, multiracial society. Its radical demands for political equality, land redistribution, and economic transformation inspired generations of activists. Yet the Charter also provoked fierce controversy. The government denounced it as Communist propaganda, while within the liberation movement, some nationalists in the Pan-Africanist Congress rejected its emphasis on nonracialism, insisting that “Africa belongs to Africans.” Although its immediate impact was limited, the Freedom Charter became the ANC’s foundational programme, influencing its policies for decades to come.

Source M

Statement from the Alabama Governor’s Office, 1961

The so-called “Freedom Riders” who came into our state this spring were nothing more than outside agitators, deliberately provoking trouble where none existed. Our people have lived peacefully under long-standing customs that separate the races, customs accepted by both white and colored citizens alike. These Riders, many of whom were trained in Northern universities, deliberately sought to inflame tensions by disregarding established seating arrangements on buses. Their actions endangered public safety and created scenes that embarrassed our state before the nation. It should be remembered that Alabama has the right to regulate its own transport system without interference from Washington or self-styled reformers. The real victims of the Freedom Rides are not the so-called protesters, but the ordinary citizens of Alabama, who had their communities disrupted and their reputation slandered by reckless publicity-seekers determined to tear down the Southern way of life.

Source N

Excerpt from Raymond Arsenault, Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice (2006)

The Freedom Rides were a watershed moment in the civil rights movement. In defiance of both state laws and violent mobs, interracial groups of activists rode Greyhound and Trailways buses through the Deep South to test the Supreme Court’s ruling in Boynton v. Virginia (1960), which had outlawed segregation in interstate bus travel. Riders were brutally attacked: buses were firebombed in Anniston, and riders were beaten in Birmingham and Montgomery. Yet the violence drew national media attention, shocking the conscience of Americans watching television screens across the country. The Riders’ courage forced the federal government to intervene, and in September 1961, the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered the desegregation of bus terminals. The Freedom Rides demonstrated the effectiveness of direct action combined with media exposure, inspiring future campaigns and proving that non-violent protest could bring tangible change, though at enormous personal risk to those who participated.

Source O

Photograph of an N.A.A.C.P. “Freedom Bus” and riders, 1961.

Source P

Oral history interview with John Lewis, Freedom Rider, 1987

When we boarded those buses, we knew the danger we were facing. We had been trained in non-violence, told to protect our heads if attacked, and never to strike back. The mobs in Birmingham and Montgomery were ferocious; I was beaten to the ground and thought I might die. But I never doubted the value of what we were doing. The Freedom Rides showed America the truth about the South. We weren’t seeking glory, we wanted the law of the land enforced. The Supreme Court had ruled segregation illegal, yet states ignored it. By risking our lives, we forced the federal government to act. I believe the Riders proved that ordinary citizens could confront injustice directly, not just wait for politicians. We carried the struggle forward, and though many of us bore scars, we knew the rides had pushed America one step closer to justice.