Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Emily Bishop
SCOM 381
5-3-2017
Abstract
In June of 1990 Nelson Mandela gave an address to a joint session of United States
Congress asking for their aid to end the apartheid regime that had been controlling South Africa
for several years. This speech like many of Mandela’s other apartheid era speeches has had very
little analysis done to it. Throughout his speech Mandela works to create a bond with the
American people and government in order to gain their support to put an end the apartheid
regime. This article will analyze Mandela’s speech using Burkean identification taking special
note of identification, division, and consubstantiality, shared values, the three points of
identification, and inviting unity. By bringing out similarities between the American people and
the people of South Africa Mandela hopes to gain the unwavering backing of the US because
they United States had yet to take a formal stand on apartheid. I have found that Mandela’s
speech to a joins session of US congress helps to illustrate the usefulness of identification when
Nelson Mandela is one of the most influential leaders that this world has even seen. His
ability as a leader ranks him amongst the greats with people like Martin Luther King, and
Gandhi. Mandela was born and raised during the 1900’s before the apartheid regime of South
Africa was in power. While Mandela was growing up there was no formal system of racial
segregation, however when he was a young man the National party was elected into power and
they introduced and enforced the system of apartheid. When he was still a young man Mandela
decided he wanted to help be the change he wanted to see in the world. Knowing that change
would not come easily Mandela worked and sacrificed almost everything he could for several
years. This work and sacrifice landed him in jail multiple times with his most famous sentencing
being 27 years long, however, Mandela still did not give up. Eventually Mandela ended up as a
leader of the South African people and gave a speech to a Joint Session of the United States
Congress in 1990 asking for their help to end the apartheid regime he had suffered under most of
his life.
Through his speech to congress Mandela is attempting to get the American people, and
government to identify with the oppressed black population of South Africa in order to gain their
support. During my first few read troughs of this speech I noticed several themes that could be
analyzed through Kenneth Burke’s identification theory. Throughout my analysis of this speech I
three specific points of identification, and an invitation of unity. I will then look at how these
Nelson Mandela’s speech to a joint session of United States Congress holds historical
significance, for a myriad of reasons; however, this is not a speech that many rhetorical scholars
have analyzed. Often times people analyze the speeches that Nelson Mandela gave after
apartheid ended and he became the first president of the democratized state of South Africa.
Those speeches were well done and inevitability have great historical significance however, I
feel they are missing a sense of what happened prior to Mandela’s presidency. Through my
research I have found some scholarly works that analyze apartheid rhetoric, Mandela’s rhetoric,
When analyzing apartheid rhetoric rhetorical scholars tend to analyze one side or the
other, either analyzing the people, or the government. In his article Ngure examines the
governments side, Ngure finds that “rather than appear to be simply reacting to the enormous
international pressure de Klerk presents himself and his administration as the innovators or
pioneers of the idea of change.” (1995 p.336) With this De Klerk and the rest of the South
African government are trying to separate themselves from the origin of apartheid, which is
causing major strife in their country. Okhamafe found in his 1985 article that the South African
government officials often felt “blacks [were] incapable of ruling themselves because they are by
nature intellectually inferior.” (1985 p. 19) Furthermore, the South African government upon
realizing the international disapproval of apartheid tried to paint themselves “as benevolent
people in charge who, upon suddenly realizing the malevolence of the apartheid system, become
“born again” and work hard to eradicate that system” (Ngure 1995 p.332) however, this is just
one side of the coin. On the other side are the rhetorical scholars who analyzed the people’s
apartheid in a favorable light the people’s rhetoric did the exact opposite. For the black people of
South Africa apartheid was “a terminal cancer which must be terminated.” (Okhamafe 1985 p.
18) Furthermore, Okhamafe also found that “blacks were saying we don’t want apartheid
reformed we want apartheid removed.” (1985 p. 22) The South African people were not alone
however; they had the support of many nations and even the United Nations. In 1972 “the
Special Political Committee of the General Assembly devoted no fewer than 19 of its total of 51
meetings to discussing just apartheid.” (Stultz 1987p. 25) The United Nations helped South
Africa by implementing multiple sanctions and trade embargos to isolate the South African
government so they would eventually have no choice but to put an end to apartheid.
While there might not be a lot of rhetorical analysis done on the rhetoric of apartheid
leaders there is a fair amount of analysis of Nelson Mandela’s rhetoric. In a study of Mandela’s
rhetoric McCormack found that Mandela uses epideictic rhetoric, which is “aimed at
strengthening bonds of loyalty, commitment and community.” (2014 p. 182) Mandela’s focus on
community is a theme seen throughout many of his speeches during the apartheid and post-
apartheid era. Furthermore in a broad study of 14 Mandela speeches Sheckels discovered that
“Mandela’s words evoked unity.” (2001 p. 93) This goes with what Zagacki and Boleyn-
Fitzgerald found when they said; “Mandela rhetorically constructed a moral framework in which
it made good sense to reconcile and move on rather than to exacerbate the existing anger and
perpetuate the sense of violence.” (2006 p.297) One thing that many of these scholars’ findings
have in common is that they are all sensing that “Mandela’s rhetoric seemed to promote
forgiveness.” (Zagacki, Boleyn-Fitzgerald 2006 p. 306) Mandela’s use of rhetoric to placate the
blacks and make the whites feel that he cares about them as well is a common theme noted in
As Mandela went from activist to political authority the rhetoric he used changed from
“the freedom fighter…to the statesman.” (Sheckels 2001 p. 94) Continuously Sheckels also says
that as he became more comfortable in his role as president Mandela “became less the victor and
more the nation’s moral leader.” (2001 p. 96) This is important because while Mandela might
have changed the type of rhetoric he employed the underlying message seemed to remain steady
with themes of forgiveness and optimism. Another strong point for Mandela is his use of ethos.
Sheckels notes “Nelson Mandela had tremendous ethos to bank on when he addresses various
issues.” (2001 p. 85) This ethos was an important component of Mandela’s rhetoric because it
made people listen to him and believe in what he was saying. Some rhetorical scholars feel
Mandela was not completely successful with the rhetoric he used during his presidency because
he was too hesitant to use all of his power to help pull the nation out of the hole created by
apartheid. However because of the ethos he had built up during his days as an activist no one
There are a few good analyses of Nelson Mandela’s apartheid rhetoric. These analyses
have a few things in common, they all note that Mandela uses specific language, and he is
always bringing awareness to apartheid and asking help to end apartheid. In J.R Martin’s 1999
essay he notes “Mandela uses concrete language.” (1999 p. 34) The concrete language that
Martin is talking about is the same language noted in Zagacki’s 2003 article “he was not calling
for pacification; he was, rather asking for a transformation in the way in which South Africans
thought and acted.” (2003 p. 711) These two scholars are focusing on the specific language that
Mandela is using, observing the patterns of forgiveness, and tolerance. Furthermore Zagacki
notices that Mandela does not simply preach forgiveness and an end to apartheid Mandela rather
“performed the behavior and political change he advocated.” (Zagacki 2003 p. 712) This moves
Mandela away from being a simple activist and pushes him into the category of role model or
icon. One author even said “Mandela had become the moral conscience of the world” (Nelson
Mandela thanks 1990 p. 21) With him practicing what he preaches Mandela became a symbol for
Methodology
In his 1950’s book entitled a Rhetoric of Motives Kenneth Burke gained recognition for a
new wave of rhetorical criticism, dramatism. Burke felt that Aristotelian criticism focused too
much on the past and so he made a move towards the future. With dramatism Burke moved to
expand upon the teachings of Aristotelian criticism, by focusing on the drama surrounding what
a rhetor was saying. Another way Burke worked to improve upon Aristotle’s teachings through
dramatism is by expanding the types of rhetoric that were being examined at the time.
Aristotelian criticism focused mainly on formal types of rhetoric like speeches, while Burke felt
that critics should be able to examine things like television shows as well. One of the main
differences between Burke’s dramatism and Aristotle’s criticism is identification and persuasion.
Fur Burke “the key term for “old rhetoric” [Aristotelian criticism] was “persuasion” and its stress
was upon deliberate design. The key term for “new rhetoric” would be “identification” at its
simplest is also a deliberate device, as when a politician seeks to identify himself with his
audience.” (Burke 1951) Burkes move towards “new rhetoric” was not meant to wipe out
Aristotelian criticism it was rather meant to improve upon it. For my analysis of Nelson
Mandela’s speech to a Joint Session of the United States Congress I will be using on Burkes
theory of Identification to examine how Mandela went about identifying himself with the U.S
Burke however, is not the only rhetorical scholar to see the usefulness of identification. In
fact many other rhetorical scholars have used identification in their works of rhetorical analysis.
One common theme that is found by looking at scholars’ papers using identification is that many
rhetors use identification to look at politics. A few of these works include Delbert’s 2009 article
and Oldenburg’s 2008 using identification to analyze different political debates. DeGenaro also
published an article in which he used identification in 2007 pulling identification into American
poetry during the era of the New Deal. A final rhetorical researcher who has used identification
is Milford in his 2009 article in which he talked about boosting community identity. Each of
these rhetorical scholars used Burke’s notion of identification a little bit differently however in
the end they were all able to prove their point through identification.
Identification is valuable because it gives a new perspective to look at a speech that was
not available before. Instead of looking at this speech as a paper, this speech is seen as more of a
drama and that is incredibly helpful especially with speeches like this one. Instead of picking out
important words and looking at how they worked to persuade the audience, I will be using those
words to see how Mandela used them to identify with his audience, to gain their support.
Furthermore, identification will give me more of an ability to move away from analyzing this
speech as a practically given and well-rehearsed speech, and instead lets me view this speech as
and consubstantiality. Each of these three points interacts with the other two forming a balance
on which identification is based. Identification essentially means how people identify with each
other to create unifications. Division is the differences that are created by identification. Every
identification creates at least one division because not every person in the world will identify
with the same things. The third of the big three terms in identification is consubstantiality which
means that people identify with each other based of shared beliefs and experiences, often times
drawing similarities where they would not otherwise exist, for example “men have common
sensations, concepts, images, ideas, attitudes that make them consubstantial.” (Burke 1952)
Once the rhetor has chosen their artifact and knows they will be using identification to
analyze it there are a few steps they will most likely follow. First a rhetor will do a thorough read
through of their artifact, keeping the themes and main ideas of identification in mind. Whilst
reading it is important to jot down some notes relating the artifact to identification; however, be
aware that this step of reading through and making notes will take several different reads. Once a
rhetor feels confident they know the path they want to take with their analysis they will move
onto the actual analysis. Here the rhetor takes their notes and turns it into analysis by explaining
the things he or she feels is critical to the text through identification. These critical moments can
be analyzed through multiple different ideals of identification to strengthen their argument. This
step is used throughout the entire paper until the rhetor feels that they have explained the
For my analysis of Nelson Mandela’s speech to a joint session of the United States
Congress I will be taking only the identification part of Burkes dramatisim. I am going to only
use identification because I believe that identification will allow me to have a greater textual
analysis. As I am reading I will be taking notes on the different times I notice Mandela saying
something that is motivated by identification. Once I have a general list of items I will begin to
pair it down until I reach a list of only the themes of identification I deem to be the most
prominent to the speech. I believe that the main concepts of identification I will be using are,
shared values, and inviting unity, as well as division and consubstantiality. I will take my main
points and make them into their own section of the analysis and apply them to Mandela’s speech.
Once I have applied my key concepts of identification to my artifact I will read over my analysis
and begin to draw central concepts from each section to come up with an overall analysis of the
entire speech through identification. Then I will look at the effectiveness of this speech in order
to show both my audience and me how this speech impacted Americas approach to apartheid.
Context
On June 22nd 1990 Nelson Mandela gave a speech to a joint session of the United States
Congress. This speech was given just four days after he gave an address to the United Nations
Apartheid Committee, and four months after he was released from a 27-year prison sentence he
got because he fought against the apartheid regime. He gave this speech on a tour of the United
States and Europe asking for foreign help to end apartheid in South Africa. To better
comprehend the context that is surrounding this speech you first need to understand, what
apartheid was, why Mandela was important, who the audience he addressed was, and how they
The National Party Government introduced apartheid to South Africa in 1948. Apartheid
is “translated from the Afrikaans meaning 'apartness'” (Sahoboss 2016). Apartheid was a way for
the National Party Government to make segregation into a law; however, apartheid was gaining
power when the rest of the world was starting to turn away from segregation. These apartheid
laws created a social system that severely hindered the black majority, and made everyone
register by their racial group. Furthermore people of color had to carry around papers authorizing
their presence in restricted, or white areas to further separate between races. However while
apartheid was prominent in South Africa it was disliked both in South Africa and around the
world. In 1977 the United Nations put an arms trading embargo on South Africa hoping to end
apartheid. However it was ultimately unsuccessful because this pushed South Africa closer to
their ally Israel. Eventually after years of sanctions and international pressure apartheid was
ended in South Africa in 1994, four years after Mandela gave his address to the United States
Congress.
Nelson Mandela was “deputy president in the African National Congress [ANC]”
(Niddrie 1990 p. 1) a group made up of people of color who opposed the National Party
government. The ANC was banned under the apartheid regime as the National Party felt that the
ANC was a threat to them. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned multiple times during his fight
against apartheid, once for leaving the country with out a permit, landing him with a five-year
prison sentence. As his five-year sentence was coming to an end his comrades were found by the
police along with travel documents linking Mandela to the ANC. This lead to Mandela getting a
life sentence in prison, of which he only served 27 years. As time passed Mandela got more
popular and people started petitioning the South African government to release him. Eventually
“on February 11, 1990 after 27 years as a political prisoner Nelson Mandela walked out of jail a
free man” (Harlow 2011 p. 14). Once he was released Mandela’s popularity seemed to
skyrocket, shortly after his release Mandela went on his global tour asking for aid to end
apartheid. His tour was met with overwhelming success in fact “one Johannesburg newspaper
summed it up with the screaming headline, Nelson Mandela, superstar!” (Niddrie 1990 p.1) This
made the South African government worry because they were trying to make some progress but
not too much. As Nelson Mandela’s fame grew the rest of the world’s dislike for apartheid grew
as well. Because of his popularity Mandela’s visit to the United Stated was much anticipated In
face Williams of the Washington Post said “It’s not a state visit. He is not a head of state. But
when African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela arrives in New York Wednesday, he
will be treated with a deference normally reserved for the most powerful world leaders.” (1990)
For this speech Nelson Mandela had a few different audiences. His first audience was his
immediate audience, which was comprised of the joint session of the United States Congress
including the House of representatives, the Senate, as well as President Bush and Vice President
Dan Quayle. This was the group of people that were in the room when he was presenting his
speech. This audience is an example of a rhetorical audience because they have the power to
change the situation in South Africa, which is what Mandela was asking for. However while this
audience had the power and ability to help Mandela they also presented a constraint. During his
presidency President Bush refused to publically denounce apartheid. At the time this caused a lot
of backlash against President Bush because many people in the United States and abroad were
unhappy with the situation in South Africa. However President Bush later revealed that he had to
remain silent on the issue because “intelligence available to him, indicated that remaining silent
toward the government in Pretoria would allow that government the political space in which to
dismantle apartheid” (Harlow 2011 p.7). Furthermore in a meeting with South Africa’s current
President De Kelerk, President Bush was informed that De Klerk could not be seen as taking
orders from America so in order to not disrupt the democratization process President Bush had to
remain silent. His silence did not mean however that President Bush didn’t want to end apartheid
or that he did not support Mandela. In fact “President George Bush invited Nelson Mandela to
Washington after the anit-apartheid leader was released from prison” (Ogbondah 1994p. 4).
Unlike his immediate audience Mandela’s secondary audience is much broader. The
second audience that Mandela is presenting his speech to is a much larger international audience
including everyone watching this speech televised, such as the American people, and foreign
leaders. Nelson Mandela’s secondary audience was outspokenly against apartheid in South
Africa. They were also big supporters of Nelson Mandela himself. In the weeks leading up to and
following his speech Mandela was regarded as a “legend, hero, celebrity” (Ogbondah 1994 p. 6)
and much more by the New York Times. This is another example of a rhetorical audience
because the American people that were watching this speech on television were able to start a
movement and impact the decisions that their representatives made in congress. The international
leaders also had the power to help Mandela end apartheid in South Africa making them a
rhetorical audience as well. Unlike Mandela’s immediate audience of the United States Congress
his secondary audience probably had more power. This is because the international audience did
not have the constraints that President Bush, and by extent the American Congress had. If the
American people or international leaders spoke out they were less likely to hinder the
democratization process.
Analysis
Throughout the entire speech Nelson Mandela is attempting to create and identification
with the American Congress and people. By creating this identification Mandela is attempting to
show that the American people and the South African people are not so different and that the
American people should help the South African people become free of the apartheid regime. By
using identification with the American people Mandela is also creating a division with many
other nations and peoples around the world. However it is important to note that the people of
South Africa and the American citizens would usually not have too much in common if Mandela
was not making the commonalities in this speech, which is an example of consubstantiality.
Furthermore, throughout this speech Mandela highlights some examples of the shared values that
the people of South African and the American people have in common to build up the unity
between these two nations. By looking at the three specific points to specify identification, which
are semi-conscious, representative, and self-persuasion I can better understand and explain the
identification Mandela is using. Finally the analysis will conclude with Mandela inviting the
United States to unite with the budding nation of South Africa in order to help their country
grow.
Early on in his speech Mandela says, “we have come here to tell you, and through you,
your own people, who are equally noble and heroic” (1990). This quote contains a great example
of how Mandela works to create identification with the American people. In this quote Mandela
is addressing congress knowing that what he is saying will reach most of the American public.
This means that when he is creating a unifying identification he is doing so with more than just
congress. The identification in this quote really starts with Mandela’s use of the word “equally”.
Without the word equally Mandela is simply praising the American people rather than building a
kinship with them. However the word equally creates a commonplace between the peoples of
both nations. This shows both countries that yes their people are similar in that they are both
equal and noble; however because Mandela is addressing only the American people he is
isolating millions of people from hundreds of different countries. This could potentially create a
division between the South African people and the rest of the world. Furthermore, Mandela is
creating identification where there otherwise might not be any. Because how we are identifying
ourselves is constantly changing Mandela chose to identify the South African people with the
A few paragraphs later Mandela states “It thirsts for the situation where [the army and
police] will not turn their weapons against the citizens simply because the citizens assert that
equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental human rights which are not only
unalienable but must, if necessary, be defended with the weapons of war” (1990). With this
quote Mandela is drawing upon some of the shared values that both the United States and South
Africa have in common. The words that Mandela is using are directly representative of this and
are found in the Declaration of Independence. However Mandela did not come upon these words
by accident. In fact these words were mostly likely chosen by Mandela’s speechwriters in order
to further the unity between South Africa and America. Furthermore Mandela changes some of
the words from the Declaration of Independence. Rather than saying life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness Mandela says “equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This show that the
needs of the South African people are slightly different than those of the American people but
In another point of his speech Mandela once again borrows from the Declaration of
Independence when he says “human rights which are not only unalienable but must, if necessary,
be defended with the weapons of war” (1990). While this is another example of Mandela
borrowing from the Declaration of Independence it is the mention of defending these rights with
weapons of was that I found to be more significant. The statement by Mandela that these rights
might need to be defended by the weapons of war is a big point of identification, because when
America defended their unalienable rights with “weapons of war” the outcome was the
Revolutionary war, and ultimately America broke free of the tyrannical reign of Great Britain.
However in the American move Declaration of Independence violence and weapons of war are
not mentioned. Instead the colonies talked about their grievances and how they had decided to
start a new country. Mandela breaks from the American Declaration of Independence by
mentioning the necessity of violence. So while this quote might exemplify some shared values it
also shows a small division between the two countries, because one is more wiling to go straight
However the previous two quotes are not the only times that Mandela references the
Declaration of Independence in this speech. Towards the end of his speech Mandela says “we
could not have known of your Declaration of Independence and not elected to join in the struggle
to guarantee the people "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."” This time when Mandela
references the Declaration of Independence he is asserting that without the United States and
their founders the people of South Africa would not have had as much inspiration to act. Because
Mandela is drawing upon the words and inspiration that helped the colonies of America to rise he
is practically comparing the reign of Great Britain over the American colonies to the ruling of the
apartheid regime over the black population of South Africa. By comparing these two unwanted
regimes Mandela is showing how the black population of South Africa feels the need to rebel
just like the colonists felt they had to up rise against the British. This quote can also be taken as a
form of flattery. It is important to remember that at this point in time Mandela is on a worldwide
tour to gain international support to end apartheid. Therefore by showing similarities between the
struggles the two countries had, and attributing why the South African people feel the need to
rise up against the apartheid regime to the American colonists similar revolt Mandela is inviting
the American people and government to identify with the suppressed population of South Africa
Mandela once again pulls upon famous and founding American literature towards the
middle of his speech when we says “we are engaged in struggle to ensure that the rights of every
individual are guaranteed and protected, through a democratic Constitution, the rule of law, an
population as suffering a similar fate as to what the American colonies suffered. By constantly
using this parallel between the colonies and the black population of South Africa Mandela
continues to remind the American people that the people of South Africa are very similar to
them. Or at least how they were before they gained their independence. Furthermore Mandela is
pointing out how the government of the new nation of South Africa would or should be set up.
Continuously the set up that Mandela has planned is very similar to that which is already in
practice in the United States. In this quote Mandela is identifying with the American citizens on
a representational level. However unlike his appeal to them on a semi-conscious level in this
quote Mandela is explaining how his people identify with the American not asking the
Americans to identify with them. This is an important aspect of the identification in this speech
because it portrays reciprocity. By showing that the South African people are identifying with
the Americans Mandela is showing that this I a two sided relationship and that the South African
people are willing to share some of themselves with the American people.
Towards the end of his speech Mandela states, “You know this more than we do - that
peace is its own reward.” (1990) While this quote may be small it is of great importance. This
quote is one of the main examples of Mandela using the self-persuasion appeal of identification
with the American people. Here he is not asking the American people to identify with the
suppressed people of South Africa, or noting how those people are identifying with America. In
this quote Mandela is letting all of his past work of identification do the talking. At this point
Mandela has lead the horse to the water and now it is time to let it drink. By stating, “you know
more than we do” Mandela is pointing out the American citizens expertise, and familiarity with
peace. Furthermore he is showing that the American citizens have something of value that they
often take for granted that the people of South Africa are desperate to get. However this work
was all done earlier in the speech, now Mandela is simply trying to get the American people on
his side. He is working to have the American people realize that he is right about peace and, not
only is peace a reward it is something that should exist across the world. Mandela is hoping that
once the American people realize this they will start to aid him and the oppressed people of
South Africa. But it is important that the American people get to this conclusion on their own,
often times it is easier to persuade people into doing what you want them to if you make it so
Another prevalent feature of this speech comes towards the end where Mandela explicitly
asks the American government to help bring the apartheid regime to an end. Throughout his
entire speech Mandela had been hinting (both subtlety and not so subtlety) that he was asking the
American government for help, however in the last few minutes of his speech he comes right out
and just asks. One example of Mandela’s asking for help comes when he says, “we shall need
your support to achieve the post-apartheid economic objectives which are an intrinsic part of the
process of the restoration of the human rights of the people of South Africa” (1990). This is the
first time in the speech that Mandela comes outright and asks for help, which is significant
because throughout the entire speech Mandela is building up a kinship, and showing how the
people of South Africa are no so very different than the Americans have been in the past and
continue to be. Mandela has highlights the different things the two nations have in common and
eventually when he feels that he has built the relationship between the countries up enough he
comes right and asks for help. This was a good strategy on the part of Mandela because had he
asked for help in the very beginning of his speech the rest of the speech would haven had to be
supporting material as to why the Americans should help them rather thank identifying with the
American and leading them to believe that they should help then asking. The way Mandela when
about is could make the Americans feel that aiding the South Africans was their idea so when
Mandela got around to asking they were already planning and hoping to be able to help.
Mandela however does not only want a one sided friendship with the Americans that they
could grow to resent. While he is asking for help Mandela points out why an alliance between
South Africa and the United States would be beneficial for both countries. In fact this is clearly
evident when Mandela says, “We would like to believe that there is a way in which we could
structure this relationship so that we do indeed benefit from your enormous resources… this
relationship should, however, be one from which your people should also derive benefit so that
we, who are fighting to liberate the very spirit of an entire people from the bondage of the
arrogance of the ideology and practice of white supremacy, do not build a relationship of
subservient dependency and fawning gratitude” (1990). While this is a long quote it does clearly
show that Mandela does not intend this to be a one sided friendship. This quote also shows how
Mandela works to build a relationship through the kinship he has constructing throughout the rest
of the speech. The last thing Mandela want’s to have happed is for his people to go back to being
ruled by someone lese after they have fought for freedom, which is something that the
Americans can clearly relate to. This invitation for unity between the oppressed people of South
Africa and the United States is a product of the identification that Mandela has been using his
entire speech. Further by inviting unity between America and South Africa Mandela is
broadening the identification between the two, because if they are allies surely they have more in
Mandela’s speech to a Joint Session of United States Congress was an overall success.
He was able to get the support from the United States that he needed even the support had to be
kept relatively quite because of the political circumstances. Mandela was able to do an amazing
job at creating identification between the two nations where there night not be any otherwise.
Through his use of shared values and inviting unity Mandela was able to make the American
people see that they black population of South Africa truly needed their help. He was able to do
this by showing the American people that their forefathers had been in a similar position before
the revolutionary war. Drawing on moments from Americas past helped to make this speech
truly effective.
However there were a few things that Mandela fell short on. Over my first few reads I
thought that Mandela was making a good use of transcendence, or the inclusive we. I felt this
because in this speech Mandela uses the word we 63 times, however the way that Mandela uses
is not inclusive at all. When Mandela is using the word we he is talking about the people of
South Africa, not the people of South Africa and the American citizens. While Mandela did do a
good job making the Americans feel like they could be a part of the movement, had he used the
word we they might have felt more included and already a part of what was going on. However
because Mandela is only inviting unity there is a possibility that he made a conscious effort to
not include the United States in his use of the word we as to not make the American government
feel pressured into accepting the invitation of unity. Another point in which Mandela struggled is
his reliance on context. Throughout the speech Mandela mentions apartheid several times,
however he does not go into much detail about what apartheid is. While this speech was given at
a time and place where apartheid was known, it would have been a good idea to paint a more in
depth picture of the struggles his people were going through. However it is also possible that
Mandela did not go into too much detail because he wanted to focus more on the solution than
the problem. Overall though this speech was very effective because Mandela was able to create a
Discussion/Contribution
Nelson Mandela’s speech to a Joint Session of the United States Congress was an
important milestone in his fight to end the apartheid regime. However while this speech is
important Mandela’s apartheid era rhetoric is rarely studied. My analysis of this speech is
important and contributes to the rhetorical community because, Mandela’s apartheid regime
rhetoric is rarely looked at, analysis of speeches where a foreign leader is asking for international
In my analysis of Mandela’s 1990 speech I looked at one example of his apartheid era
rhetoric. This is significant because Mandela gave hundreds of speeches during the apartheid era
and very few have been analyzed. Most of the analyses of Mandela’s works have been done on
the speeches he gave both during and after his presidency. While it makes since that these
speeches are looked at thoroughly Mandela’s apartheid era speeches are just as important if not
more important than his later speeches. This means that there are several historically significant
speeches that Mandela has given that have for the most part been left alone analytically speaking.
My analysis of this speech was only a small fraction of the work that can be done with this
speech and his apartheid era speeches. However my analysis also revealed some interesting
things about Mandela’s apartheid rhetoric that might not have been noted had I not done my
analysis.
The first thing I noticed is that while Nelson Mandela is often credited with having a lot
of ethos he builds it subtlety, and through his reputation. Mandela does not come outright and
state this is who I am and this is what I know. Rather he presents situations in his speeches that
show how you can build your ethos in a way that shows your credible, but doesn’t make it look
like your trying to hard. Another thing that was revealed to me is how well Mandela’s speech fit
his audience. Audience analysis is a key step in any presentation, but in such a public
presentation where the whole world is watching it can be hard to pinpoint an audience, however
Mandela does it well. He chooses to focus on his primary audience but his message can go to any
person and still resonate. Furthermore Mandela uses situations, which demonstrate his point
without being too forward. In one word Mandela is great at being subtle and completely obvious
at the same time. Which is a quality that works very well for him, because he does not hit the
audience over the head with what he is trying to say but at the end of the speech the audience
In his apartheid era speeches Mandela has his more natural style, he is able to say what he
thinks with less care about the repercussions to himself. This allows a rhetorical critic to truly
understand the type of speaker Nelson Mandela was before he was elected president. Once
Mandela was elected president his rhetorical voice changed because of the situation he found
himself in. He was now responsible for the well being of his entire country and anything he said
could shift the movement of the nation. While his voice was extremely persuasive before as
president Mandela’s voice carried a more official weight and it changed him. The change in
Mandela’s voice is important to look at as well, however because there is not much analysis of
his earlier speeches where Mandela had his early voice it is hard to note a difference.
This speech was given while Mandela was on a worldwide tour asking for foreign aid,
which makes my analysis more significant because there is very limited rhetorical criticism on
foreign leaders asking for international help. However tis is because of a couple reasons; firstly
as I will mention later there is not much analysis of non-American rhetoricians, and second heads
of states do not often ask for aid in such a public setting. By Mandela asking for the United
States help in such a public way he is making it known how badly his country needs it. However
it is not just this one speech where Mandela is asking publically for help, it is on his entire tour.
My analysis of this one speech will give other rhetorical critics something to build off of when
doing their own rhetorical analysis of Mandela or any other political leader asking for help. This
analysis will also bring to light the lack of the work done about foreign heads of state asking for
interactional leaders for aid. However it is not only Mandela asking for aid that this analysis will
allow other rhetorical critics to build upon, my analysis will stretch to other areas as well.
Firstly my analysis sows one speech about an oppressed minorities leader asking for help,
this could be built upon in several different ways. Analyses could be done with the leader asking
for both domestic and international aid, as well as the minority leader asking people who ad
previously suffered a similar fate. This analysis could also open doors to people both foreign
leaders and regular citizens using Burkean identification to ask for help. The final main category
I see my analysis opening doors for as far as asking for aid is concerned is future political leaders
asking for aid before they are officially elected to lead their people. This could be interesting
because it would put these leaders in a new light and it would be intriguing to see what patterns
came out of it. It enough rhetorical artifacts are analyzed rhetorical critics could start to see a
pattern emerge and those patters could further start a new rhetorical theory.
The third main reason my analysis of this Nelson Mandela speech is important is because
there is not much rhetorical analysis done on non-American rhetoricians, and speakers. This is
noteworthy because rhetorical criticism started several thousands of years before the United
States even existed. Originating from the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans rhetoric
moved across Europe at different times before it finally became a thing in the United States.
American critics who analyze American rhetorical artifacts do most of the work in modern
rhetorical criticism. However there are hundreds of influential speeches that were given by non-
American speakers that have been left un-analyzed. My analysis is just one step in the right
direction, however more critics need to start taking these steps as well. Once other rhetorical
critics start to analyze non-American speeches patterns can form, and if enough speeches from
around the world are analyzed it would be possible to note different speaking styles from
different countries. Furthermore if the rhetorical analysis goes back in time long enough it would
be interesting to see how different countries adopted their speaking style from other countries
and when the rhetorical voice of each country started to change. These are just a few things that
Conclusion
Nelson Mandela was a very important figure not only in South Africa but also in the
world. His work to help to put an end to the apartheid regime that caught the world by storm and
his speech to a Joint Session of US congress was right in the middle of it. That speech was
widely successful thanks in large part to its use of identification. As a part of identification
Mandela started out by bringing fourth similarities between the oppressed black population of
South Africa, and the government and citizens of the United States. Then Mandela brought some
shared values to light by using the founding fathers and their works to demonstrate how South
Africa is fighting fro their freedom similarly to the American colonists. Finally Mandela invites
the United Stated to unite with the people of South Africa and enter a mutually beneficial
friendship that will work to end the apartheid regime prevalent in South Africa.
However this speech is not only important because if its impact towards the end of the
apartheid regime this speech is also important because it falls under two categories that are not
often rhetorically analyzed. The first category if Nelson Mandela speeches during the apartheid
era, and the second being speech given by a non-American. Both of these categories are lacking
in rhetorical analysis, which is a shame because they both could provide the rhetorical
community with so much information. Thankfully the field of rhetorical analysis is always
http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
Burke, K. (1951). Rhetoric — Old and New. The Journal of General Education, 5(3), 202–209.
DeGenaro, W. (2007). "The New Deal": Burkean Identification and Working-Class Poetics.
Delbert, J. (2009). Identification and Burkean Frames within Nader's 'Open the Debates'
Denounce Apartheid in South Africa. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(1), 45-69.
Hochmuth, M (1952) Kenneth burke and the “new rhetoric”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 38(2),
133-144
Martin, J. R. (1999). Grace: the logogenesis of freedom. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 29.
McCormack, R. (2014). Reading Mandela: Genre Pedagogy versus Ancient Rhetoric. Linguistics
Milford, M. (2009). Sarah Palm as Mascot: Burkean Symbolic Boasting and Community
Moultrie, T. (2005). Racism and reproduction: Population rhetoric in South Africa, 1900–1974.
Nelson Mandela thanks UN for efforts to secure his release; Urges continued sanctions against
Niddrie, D. & SPCL. (1990, June 23). South Africa "While Nelson Mandela receives a hero’s
welcome in North America, back home in South Africa President F.W. de Klerk frets
Ogbondah, C. W. (1994). Can the devil speak the truth? The New York Times Coverage of
Okhamafe, E. (1985). SOUTH AFRICA: A STORY IN BLACK AND WHITE. The Black
Communication Association, 1.
Sahoboss. (2016, May 6). A history of Apartheid in South Africa [Text]. Retrieved February 24,
Saunders, R. (2001). The Agony and the Allegory: The Concept of the Foreign, the Language of
Sheckels, T. F. (2001). The Rhetoric of Nelson Mandela: A Qualified Success. Howard Journal
Stultz, N. (1987). The Apartheid Issue at the General Assembly: Stalemate or Gathering Storm?
Williams, J. (1990, June 17). Mandela in America: the Risks of Adulation. The Washington Post
Zagacki, K. S. (2003). Rhetoric, Dialogue, and Performance in Nelson Mandela's "Televised
Address on the Assassination of Chris Hani". Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 6(4), 709-735.
Zagacki, K., & Boleyn-Fitzgerald, P. (2006). Rhetoric and Anger. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 39(4),