Paper 1: Bias Is Not a Limitation You Can Stop At
On a Paper 1 mock on Rights and Protest, the class is studying apartheid South Africa. The four sources concern the Sharpeville shooting of 21 March 1960, when police opened fire on a crowd protesting against pass laws, killing 69 people and wounding more than 180. S1 is an eyewitness report by a British journalist published in a British newspaper in March 1960. S2 is an extract from the South African government's official commission of inquiry, published later in 1960. Question 2, worth 4 marks, asks: 'What is the value of Sources S1 and S2 to a historian studying the Sharpeville shooting?' The candidate writes: 'S1 is biased because the journalist was British and likely opposed to apartheid, so it is not valuable. S2 is biased because it was written by the government, so it is not valuable either. Therefore neither source is useful.' The teacher marks it 1/4 and writes: 'You have spotted bias but not value.'
1. Rewrite the answer to Question 2 so that it explains the value and limitations of each source in relation to the enquiry.
Read the worked answer
Value, not verdict: S1 is an eyewitness report by a British journalist, published in a British newspaper in March 1960. Its origin and purpose matter: it was written quickly for a foreign readership and framed by the paper's editorial stance. That limits its reliability as a neutral court record, but it does not make it valueless. It is valuable as evidence of what an eyewitness saw, of the atmosphere at Sharpeville, and of how the shooting was reported internationally. Its limitation is that the journalist had a partial view and may have relied on other witnesses under deadline pressure.
S2, the official commission of inquiry, was produced by the South African government later in 1960. Its purpose was to establish an official account and to respond to criticism of the police. That makes it self-justifying, but it is still valuable as evidence of the state's narrative, of police testimony, and of the legal and political reasoning used to defend the shooting. Its limitation is that it may omit or soften evidence that undermines the police.
A 4-mark answer in one sentence: S1 is valuable for eyewitness experience and international reaction, and S2 is valuable for the official narrative and police perspective; both are limited by their purposes, so the historian should cross-reference them rather than dismiss them as 'biased'.
Why this scores: It distinguishes reliability from value, uses origin and purpose, and ties each source to the enquiry into Sharpeville. The original answer stopped at 'biased', which is a limitation, not a complete evaluation.
2. How would you deploy these two sources in a Question 4 essay: 'To what extent was the South African government responsible for the violence at Sharpeville?'
Read the worked answer
Thesis: The South African government bears the primary responsibility for the violence at Sharpeville, because the pass laws created the protest, the police controlled the response, and the official account was shaped to protect the state. But responsibility is not exclusive: the PAC's decision to call a mass protest without a permit, and the crowd's decision to remain after warnings, created the conditions in which panic and force became possible.
Using S2: The official commission report can be used to show the government's justification: that police faced a threatening crowd and acted in self-defence. That is evidence of the state's narrative, not proof of the facts. Using S1: The journalist's eyewitness report can be used to show that the crowd was largely peaceful and that the shooting was experienced as unprovoked. That is evidence of the scene and of international perception, but it is one observer's account. Own knowledge: The pass laws, the PAC's campaign, the police deployment, the death toll of 69 and the wounding of more than 180, and the political aftermath all need to be integrated. Judgement: The government's responsibility is strongest at the level of policy and command; the sources should be cross-referenced so that the official narrative is tested against eyewitness evidence, not simply accepted or rejected.