Reagan's Rhetoric Bleeds Violence

The apartheid in South Africa proved to be one of the most criminal events in history. Although much of the world was aware of the inhumane acts that the Afrikanen dominated government was implementing, it wasn't until 1977 that the United Nations began to intervene. The United Nations resolution of 418 stated: "that all States shall cease forthwith any provision to South Africa of arms and related material of all types, including the sale or transfer of weapons and ammunition..." Despite the effort of the United Nations, some States still continued to have trade and commerce with South Africa, one of these being the United States. Through the misleading rhetoric of Ronald Reagan's, "U.S. Economic Relations with South Africa" speech he manipulated, the United States citizens into helping enforce South Africa's unjustified Apartheid.

One of Reagan's major strengths in his speech is his effective use of Orwellian language. During his speech he states: "The primary victims of an economic boycott of South Africa would be the very people we seek to help. Most of the workers who would lose jobs because of sanctions would be black workers” (Reagan). What Reagan fails to mention is the United Nations did not ask to halt all trade and commerce with South Africa, just “arms and related material.” Therefore, the only people this would affect would be the ones directly affiliated with any type of weapons, such as the South African government.

Reagan’s speech also exemplifies a great deal of the third- party technique. His speech alludes to Alan Paton, a South African writer, Paton states: “ I am totally opposedisambiguatedtment. (in South Africa) It is primarily for a moral reason. Those who will pay most grievously for disinvestments will be the black workers of South Africa,” (Reagan). Because Paton is a respected South Africa citizen, this allusion helps give Reagan’s speech more validity. However, what Reagan once again fails to mention is that Alan Paton is a white citizen, he has not spent a night in a township, he has not been lashed because of the color of his skin, and he has not been deprived any of his essential human rights. Of course Paton is in favor of continuing commerce with the United States, he has not been victim to any of its brutal repercussions.


Reagan once again draws to the third party technique, he states: “As one African leader remarked recently, South Africa is like a zebra: if the white parts are injured, the black parts will die, too” (Reagan). Although this “African leader” is left ambiguous, I would be my future social security check that the “leader” is a white male. Since he is labeled a “leader,” it can be assured that this is a man of great power, maybe a man greatly aiding the South African government, a man who perpetuates racism and believes that blacks are inadequate of ruling themselves. Reagan’s use of the third-party technique, is completely irrational and one sided; however, it proved to be successful for him. As Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber state in Trust Us We’re Experts, “marketing is a battle of perceptions not products”(58). Despite the fact the United States citizens were not familiar with Reagan’s third-party technique allusions, it still had validity to them because they were South African natives.

By way of rhetorical manipulation, Ronald Reagan made the American public feel responsible for the future of South Africa. Through his use of Orwellian language and the third-party technique he managed to plant a false seed in the mind of the American public, a seed which disguised the influence that America really had on South Africa, supplying their government with weapons that were necessary to keep the violent racial segregation alive.