Introduction
Coates contends that America’s prosperity is inextricably linked to its history of slavery and racism, which should be adequately addressed. Enslaved people were the most valuable assets in the United States and contributed to establishing the American economy. The author expresses frustration with the lack of willingness to compensate blacks by stating, “One cannot escape the question by hand-waving at the past, disavowing the acts of one’s ancestors, nor by citing a recent date of ancestral immigration” (Coates 15).
Furthermore, he points out the vilification of African-Americans’ contribution by saying, “To proudly claim the veteran and disown the slaveholder is patriotism à la carte” (Coates 15). Although the effects of historical racism in America are still apparent, there is a general unwillingness to embrace the possibility the impacted communities may be owed compensation rather than apologies. Therefore, the author primarily uses pathos and ethos in this context to appeal to reason. The writer uses rhetorical devices to build, strengthen, and develop his arguments for informing the audience that the effects of slavery cannot be eliminated by claiming it happened in the past.
Background
The economic foundations of slavery, segregation, and federally supported housing policies demonstrate how black Americans were barred from accumulating wealth and passing it on to the next generations. Coates argues that it is only logical to revisit these historical injustices and reconcile wealth distribution as justice for the suffering and deprivation African Americans underwent during slavery (Coates 15).
He attempts to appeal to logic that the systematic discrimination imposed on African Americans hugely contributed to their lack of economic and social progress. Logical marginalization and denial of private property rights throughout slavery played a part in the bigger picture of the inequality between black and white families in the United States. The excerpt highlights one of the concerns raised by Coates about persistent ignorance of past atrocities on blacks and citing recent immigrants as a reason not to pay reparations.
How and Why the Chosen Text Works Rhetorically
The excerpt summarizes the author’s claims that one cannot selectively acknowledge the success of a nation if it was a collective effort. Choice of phrases, such as “hand-writing the past” and “patriotism à la carte,” achieves its effect by drawing attention to the deliberate act to ignore the contribution of African-Americans in the country’s growth (Coates 15). The latter phrase perfectly illustrates the perceived legitimacy of collective guilt and pride as motivators of political behavior. For instance, irony like “proudly claim” within the context adds a sarcastic effect to the inhumane nature of those responsible for suppressing the noble course to make amends (Coates 15). Within the text, the author incorporates rhetorical appeals to sympathy, justice, and rationale in dealing with the issue of reparation.
Compensation has typically been presented as sympathy payment, but Coates is determined to discredit this perception. The author’s claims are synonymous with seeking financial compensation to ease the damage done by the moral wrong of American slavery. The idea is often considered a rhetorical grenade from a political perspective. Therefore, it is popularly ridiculed as a scheme by blacks to gain unfairly from historical injustice not experienced by themselves. A frequent question is whether it is justified for the current generation to pay for evil committed by their forefathers. Besides, it is reasonable to question whether it is justifiable for blacks of the time to gain despite not having suffered directly because of slavery and injustice. Coates uses the quoted text above to trigger reasoning in readers by indirectly asking a question. Since the extract elicits curiosity by implicitly asking why Americans readily accept forefathers shaped the country while denying slaveholders, it works rhetorically.
Purpose of the Text
The purpose of the text is to appeal to reason and seek answers for discrimination against specific groups of people through emotion. Additionally, it means initiating a discussion on why recent immigrants should be an issue in the compensation process. The goal is to question the legitimacy of policymakers, whites, and those who oppose restitution. Yet, African Americans suffered at the hands of slaveholders for the nation’s prosperity. Furthermore, the indirect objective of the excerpt is to seek sympathy and point out that slaveholders contributed to the pain of a race, and they deserve to pay for those sins.
The Target Audience
This excerpt’s invoked audience are politicians, policymakers, and white people opposed to reparation. The issue raised by Coates is slavery, but more focus is placed on how politicians have retracted policies on reparation while people of white color scorned it. Mentioning reparation today revokes people’s thoughts about those who died 100 years ago rather than making things right. Ironically, the author acknowledges that the “last slaveholder died has been dead for a very long time,” yet apportions claims on the current regime(Coates 15). He maintains that behaving more respectfully does not stop black families from being marginalized or exploited, whether in the present or the past.
The phrase “one cannot escape the question by hand-waving the past” echoes his sentiments against the politicians and opponents of reparation. The word “hand-waving” creates sarcasm and ridicules people who intend to ignore the past, yet it shapes their future (Coates 15). Accordingly, the results of slavery cannot be eliminated by claiming they belong to the past. The rationale for accepting America’s forefathers and the Revolutionary War shaped the country and its ideals today, yet failing to acknowledge slaveholders’ legacy seems illogical. Assenting the former while excluding the latter is analogous to only taking part of the country.
How the Author Connects with the Audience
The author attempts to connect with the audience using logos and pathos demonstrated in the text and the overall article. The statement “disowning the acts of one’s ancestors” demonstrates how the author used pathos to evoke feelings of pity and sympathy (Coates 15). For instance, stating that one cannot “proudly claim the veteran and disown slaveholder” is an appeal to logos by citing facts (Coates 15). He builds an emotional bridge with the audience by appealing to ethics and patriotism in acknowledging the nation’s forbears regardless of color.
In the broader article, Coates uses rhetorical devices, such as symbolism and narrative, to build up this excerpt. For instance, the story of Clade Rose, an accomplished World War veteran and family man, at the beginning makes the narration a good surrogate for the broader injustices against blacks. Having gotten a better job, married, and a World War II vet, Rose had all the accolades to be a good American and settle among the middle class (Coates 5).
In sharp contrast, Coates emphasizes he could not get a mortgage because of color. The character is used symbolically to show personal contribution toward nation-building was subdued by one’s racial identity rather than achievements. The institutionalized systems set by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) suppressed efforts to survive for African people in black neighborhoods (Coates 6). Therefore, the argument on whether to revisit the past and compensate for the evils of slavery will always remain a contentious subject.
How the Author Builds His Arguments
Coates builds his argument by highlighting facts and creating a scenario that elicits curiosity, discussion, and controversy. He makes an argument around institutional racism and lets the reader realize why reparation is the answer. One can easily conclude that financial restitution was the impression of Coates from the way the writer puts across his arguments. Furthermore, he brings up a contentious issue about recently migrated people. Including “recent immigrants” is appropriate because it shows he acknowledges the problem (Coates 15).
However, he questions the audience about the legitimacy, citing recent occurrences to refute the need to pay restitution to enslaved people’s descendants. For instance, it is impossible to imagine that new arrivals in America would conceive the idea of paying restitutions to the black community, yet they were never the preparators. Envisioning that the burden will be taken by the white majority, who is already indebted to economic hard times, will be a political explosion. From this perspective, the author is trying to build his argument based on the controversial ideology that policymakers and opposers of targeted compensation have raised.
Conclusion
The exception in this context highlights Coates’s view that the impacts of slavery cannot be eliminated by stating the offenses that occurred in the past. The author uses logos and pathos to appeal to the reason for the concept of reparation and persuade the audience. The target audience in the quote are politicians who make policies and the white population opposing the idea of paying restitution to descendants of slavery. He builds his concept on a revered topic of racism and past atrocities on blacks by slaveholders to elicit sympathy, curiosity, and recognition of the injustices that need compensation. Additionally, the writer raises a contentious issue on recent immigrants to trigger the reader’s sense of logic and build his arguments.
Work Cited
Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, 2014, pp. 1-29.