Many specific craft moves are used throughout the article. Most importantly, Smith uses the Pistorius trial to point out how the repeal of apartheid completely changed South Africa. The fact that a black woman judged a black man shows how far the country has come. In the article, it is stated that "A black woman judging a white man would have been unthinkable under apartheid." The word "unthinkable" is used to strongly portray the severity of segregation under apartheid. The perspective of only one person other than the author is included, race is not specified. The perspective of blacks/whites is missing. The author uses many craft moves to communicate her message to the reader.
I realized after reading this article that South Africa has come a long way since the repeal of apartheid, but racial tensions still reside. After all, apartheid wasn't repealed until 1991, and only because of international pressure. This was nearly 30 years after the civil rights movement of the 1960's in the United States. Despite this, it only took 3 years for the nation to elect a black president (Nelson Mandela). In a country with a black majority, whites ruled. I think that it's very strange that South Africa has only been equal for 23 years. I find it even more strange that it took the nation so long to recognize equal rights for all races. Also, I must wonder how a minority ruled a large nation for so long. In conclusion, the Pistorius trial is a reminder of the effects of the repeal of apartheid and the lingering racial tensions.
Your conclusion is great! Your tone in this response was very professional, nice job.
ReplyDelete