Analysis Of Michaels And Coates 's ' The Idea Of The Way Reparations Should Administered '

Culturally believed to be inferior that slavery had ingrained in American culture, African American’s were segregated and prejudiced against. Reparations to African Americans must do more then merely give out money as an apology for past wrongs committed. It has to be Cultural Revolution. It must seek to eliminate any beliefs of the inferiority African Americans.

Slavery and racism was the plague of the United States. It followed on the heals of government policy and trickled down the social ladder for many years. Racial discrimination is still existent today, though people are afraid to talk about it, for fear of admitting ancestral sin and current stereotypes. Ta-Nehisi Coates expresses these ideas in his article “The Case for Reparations”, and focuses on the issue of home ownership in Chicago. The bottom line of his article is that one must not forget and discard of the past, rather they must acknowledge and own what has happened. With Coates focus on American oppression, one doesn’t glean an exceptional take on the United States, from his perspective. He describes the U.S. as too timid to own its mistakes. In the middle of the 20th century, Chicago, discrimination was rampant. Blacks were targeted by “real-estate speculators” when trying to own a house, they were put “on contract.” In response to the issues brought about by the contracts, the Contract Buyers League was founded. This was an attempt to reverse the damage that was being done. Discrimination still occurs today. Racial discrimination has long plagued the U.S., but it is possible to change.

Reparation is a term defined as “the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.” How does this exactly apply when we’re talking about discrimination and segregation? Ta-Nehisi Coates presents “The Case for Reparations” to illustrate the need of a reparation to African- American citizens. Coates explains three major concepts in his paper. He emphasizes how African- American citizens have helped create wealth, displays how the government has actually restricted African- American citizens from owning homes in history, and presents a series of compelling stories from people still suffering discrimination and segregation today. In this paper, I will defend “The Case for Reparations” in agreement with Ta-Nahisi Coates.

The United States government should pay reparations to African Americans as a means of admitting their wrong-doing and making amends. The damages African Americans have sustained from White America’s policy of slavery have been agonizing and inhumane. Therefore, I am in favor of reparations for African Americans. The effect of slavery has been an enduring issue within the African American community. Many of us are cognizant of the harm racism brought to the African American race, conveyed through slavery, racial segregation and discrimination. African Americans suffered many atrocities, but the greatest damage done to them was the destruction of they’re original identity. African

Of those was the whole idea of reparations for blacks, which is great, but honestly the past should just be the past. I personally think to bring up the past is to hurt those in the future. Don’t get me wrong; I see the benefits that could arise from the case like closing the wealth gap. However, getting society on board would be much harder now than it was in the early economy. There is nothing that could fully repay the African Americans, not even the land in which they are owed. You can’t bring back what they really want, which are the family and friends that have been lost. You can’t heal the pain that they have endured along the way. So there is no need to bring up all the memories that would most likely lead to riots and for everyone to show their true colors for something that will probably never happen. Like Coates said, “The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world.” (Coates, 2014) You cannot correct what has already been done all you can do is move forward even if it means moving forward without the idea of

For many years the United States has committed atrocious and discriminatory acts against African Americans. In a seemingly more “equal” society today many are wondering what debt is owed to the descendants of African Americans. According to Alfred Brophy of University of North Carolina, reparations are defined as, “programs that are justified on the basis of past harm and that are also designated to assess and correct that harm and improve the lives of victims in the future.” Throughout this paper I will be discussing whether reparations should be paid to African Americans. I will evaluate the question through legal, moral, and political lenses. I will evaluate the start of the movement of reparations while also taking into consideration how reparations have been given in the past. I will also explore new forms/types of reparations that can be given to African Americans. I will also determine the short and long term impacts the implementation of reparations would have on African American society and the society in its entirety.

In “The Case for Reparations” by Ta-Nehisi Coates, the author begins his article with this quote to ensure that his audience has a different perspective about the case for African American reparations. There is no denying that since the inception of the United States of America, African Americans have faced serious discrimination and injustice, which may in fact entitle them to reparations. Some African American communities of the present are still experiencing the negative effects of slavery, Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction racism. These negative effects are evident in Chicago’s North Lawndale, where the almost all-black community still suffers from the injustices committed by contract sellers when African Americans would try to purchase a home (Coates). In his article, Coates claims that African Americans deserve reparations because they inherit an “ecologically different” type of poverty compared to whites as members and are haunted by their history of impoverished ancestors (“The Case for Reparations”). The author’s premise is flawed because poverty is disadvantageous to all groups it affects, not just African Americans. Thus, one cannot justify reparations because African Americans have a different type of inherited poverty. There are

Although Coates does not offer any particulars regarding an immediate solution for reparations and how they should be administered, he does seem to make some suggestions. Coates implies that improvements in educational opportunities through scholarships, affirmative action, and increased funding can serve as reparations. Expanding healthcare access for black Americans is another way of providing reparations. Moreover, monetary compensation to generations of African-Americans affected by discrimination can be given as reparations. Most importantly, Coates argues that the prospect of reparations should be at the very least discussed. Approving Congressman John Conyers Jr.’s HR 40 bill would open up that discussion. Whether reparations are given or not, Coates stresses that the United States cannot continue to claim to be the example for liberty, freedom, or a democracy if it continues to refuse to recognize the damages that have been imposed on blacks for the gain of the nation (Coates, 2014). The issue with discussing reparations seems to lie in not knowing how much reparation is enough, or how much and to whom they will be given

Coates ultimately poses the demand for reparations as a means for blacks to finally have justice served against the crooked system that existed in America. In his argument, he tries to justify reparations by giving a detailed progressive timeline of the continuous discrimination of African Americans after slavery was abolished. There are several ways that Coates executes his argument on the racial discrimination towards African Americans to make them inferior to white supremacists. He does this by using text from famous literature to pursue an ancient justification of reparations. Another way he does this is by using the life of Clyde Ross to illustrate racial discrimination on a personal level. The final way is by describing the idea of institutional slavery against blacks and the many ways white supremacists, or those in high powered positions would take advantage of blacks.

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ essay, The Case for Reparations, is a rhetorical essay focused on attempting to convince American’s that the descendants of African-Americans are owed something since their ancestors were a key part of the foundation of this nation. His main audience is clearly African Americans, but my question is how well he does convincing other demographics. Can he convince Asians, Caucasians, or Hispanics? What about single mothers in Kentucky? If Ta-nehisi Coates is unable to convince more than just his target audience then it can be argued that he did not do a great job of communicating his ideas to everyone.

Receiving reparations of any type or form would never be able to replace the lives that were drove to ruin. Cutting a check out of guilt would not make up the many Black individuals who centuries ago were forced to forsake their lives, families, culture, religion, language, and dreams for a new life that crushed them into the dirt at every opportunity. Not to mention the irreparable damage that has caused me, my friends, family and community to be robbed out of every single piece of culture we can never get back. And the worst part about reparations is for it to take place, that would mean that our enslavers would have to acknowledge slavery of Africans as a whole. Which I know will be a wish that will never come to fruition.

The author uses the term “Reparations” repetitively in the text. According to the text the word “reparation” means to make amends. Coates (2014) also refers to reparations as compensation. America should take responsibility and pay the price for the mistreatment to African Americans (2014). Coates (2014) does not only mean monetary compensation but acceptance and acknowledgement. The author

For D’Souza’s “The Reparation Fallacy” his thesis is that racism still exists in present day but it is not explicit by rather implicit as in racism is more underground, in other words, racism is not that big of a deal in the present day. You do not see people actively preaching segregation and power to the majority,, instead you see the majority trying to help minority groups as a way to repent for they past actions. As D’Souza states “in the present day, the racism isn't the type of racism that can prevent people from achieving success” (RF).Dworkin’s thesis in “Affirmative Action: Does it work” is presented as a question: Is affirmative action something that helps society or does it provide more problems than solutions. Dworkin provides arguments

The most interesting topic is perhaps, reconciliation and healing. In chapters 11, 12,13 and 14. Hayner discusses the relevance of commissions for the victims of the human rights violations. According to her, for victims telling their own story and obtaining acknowledgment of their cases can be a way of healing, but at the same time the victims run the risk of retraumatization. However, the comparative study mentioned in the previous paragraph, presents a more holistic argument; there is no reconciliation without justice, and there is no justice without reparations. Without reparations, the condition of victim persists and the strategic value of forming a commission is lost.

During the Suriname Guerrilla War between 1986 and 1992 between the Jungle commando led by Ronnie Brunswijk and the Surinamese military team headed by Desi Bouterse, the human rights of the people who were living in the tribal communities in the district of Marowijne were consistently being violated. However a peace agreement had been signed in France Guiana in May 1992, the American Court of Human Rights sentenced the government of Suriname of committing actions against human rights and ordered the state to start an investigation to compensate the civilians of the massacre in the Moiwana village on November 29, 1986 in Marowijne (Inter-American Court of Human Rights 2006). Despite the Miowana village however, there were other villages