You are on page 1of 28

Down With Apartheid: a Burkean Identification Analysis of Nelson Mandela’s 1990 Address

to a Joint Session Of United States Congress

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

asking for international aid.


Introduction

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

will be looking at Mandela’s use of identification, division, consubstantiality, shared values,

three specific points of identification, and an invitation of unity. I will then look at how these

parts of identification help make this speech a success for Mandela.


Literature Review

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,

and Mandela’s apartheid 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

rhetoric during the apartheid regime.


While the South African Government was using rhetoric to show themselves and

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

many analyses of Mandela’s speeches.

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

noticed or cared in the moment.

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

the apartheid movement.

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

congress and how Identification helped him to succeed in the end.

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

a way to empower and motivate the American government to help Mandela.

Identification is a branch of Burkes dramatism that focuses on identification, division,

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

important aspects of their artifact.

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

felt about apartheid.

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

people of the United States, this is an example of consubstantiality.

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

ultimately they are still similar.

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

to violence while the other aims for a more peaceful solution.

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

on a semi-conscious level, by appealing to their inherent values.

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

entrenched Bill of Rights which should be enforced by an independent judiciary, as well as a


multi-party political system” (1990). Once again Mandela is portraying the South African

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

they think it is their idea.

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

common than if they did before.

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

connection with the American people, and gain their support.

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

aid is infrequent, and there is not a lot of study of non-American rhetoricians.

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

completely now what he was trying to say.

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

my analysis could influence; however the possibilities are endless.

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

growing, and there is always going to be new analysis by different rhetoricians.


Bibliography

Apartheid-Facts and Summary. (2010). Retrieved February 23, 2017, from

http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid

Burke, K. (2006). On Persuasion, Identification, and Dialectical Symmetry. Philosophy &

Rhetoric, 39(4), 333-339.

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.

Rhetoric Review, 26(4), 385-404. doi:10.1080/07350190701577918

Delbert, J. (2009). Identification and Burkean Frames within Nader's 'Open the Debates'

Campaign. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.

Harlow, W. F. (2011) The Triumph of Silence: President George H. W. Bush’s Refusal to

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

& The Human Sciences, 9(2), 177-200. doi:10.1558/lhs.v9i2.177

Milford, M. (2009). Sarah Palm as Mascot: Burkean Symbolic Boasting and Community

Identity. Florida Communication Journal, 37(2), 43-53.

Moultrie, T. (2005). Racism and reproduction: Population rhetoric in South Africa, 1900–1974.

African Studies, 64(2), 217-242. doi:10.1080/00020180500355710

Nelson Mandela thanks UN for efforts to secure his release; Urges continued sanctions against

South Africa (1990). United Nations Chronicle, 27(3), 21.


Ngure wa, M. (1995). Apprehending the power and ideological import of metaphor in President

de Klerk's rhetoric. Howard Journal Of Communications, 5(4), 331-352.

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

Mandela, superstar”! The Globe and Mail (Canada).

Ogbondah, C. W. (1994). Can the devil speak the truth? The New York Times Coverage of

Mandela's US visit. Africa Media Review, 8(2), 89-109.

Okhamafe, E. (1985). SOUTH AFRICA: A STORY IN BLACK AND WHITE. The Black

Scholar, 16(6), 18-23.

Oldenburg, C. (2008). Electoral Estrangement and Courtship by 'the Dancing of an Anecdote':

Burkean Identification Strategies in Presidential Debates. Conference Papers -- National

Communication Association, 1.

Sahoboss. (2016, May 6). A history of Apartheid in South Africa [Text]. Retrieved February 24,

2017, from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa

Sanders, M. (2006). Undesirable Publications: J.M. Coetzee on Censorship and Apartheid. La

and Literature, 18(1), 101-114. doi:10.1525/lal.2006.18.1.101

Saunders, R. (2001). The Agony and the Allegory: The Concept of the Foreign, the Language of

Apartheid, and the Fiction of J. M. Coetzee. Cultural Critique, (47), 215-264.

Sheckels, T. F. (2001). The Rhetoric of Nelson Mandela: A Qualified Success. Howard Journal

Of Communications, 12(2), 85-99. doi:10.1080/106461701300342309

Stultz, N. (1987). The Apartheid Issue at the General Assembly: Stalemate or Gathering Storm?

African Affairs, 86(342), 25-45. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/722864

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),

290-309. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20697164

You might also like