Introduction
Coates and Frum’s articles demonstrate that a fair deal has not been provided to African Americans throughout the United States history, raising questions on whether they should be compensated. The disadvantages were experienced from the period the blacks were treated as slaves and subjected to working on the farms of the whites. However, the Black Americans have been able to pass through the hindrance of the case by claiming various possibilities, rights, and more dignity. However, the process has been painful and slow because not everyone supports the hardships they have encountered in the past. Relatively, they have been subjected to violence, discrimination, and racism that has originated from the whites who felt they were superior to the blacks.
Now that the nation has decided to associate itself with the negative virtue prevailing within their society, numerous questions have been raised on whether the blacks should be repatriated, with everyone providing their opinion on the matter. The concept calls for a specific amount of money to be used in paying the descendants of slaves by the U.S., but the dilemma is that it has to come from the taxpayers who are citizens of the same country. Therefore, the purpose of my argumentative essay is to support Coates’ ideology of reparation since it is stronger than Frum’s refusal on the same case since Coates tries to provide better reasons as to why the individuals should be compensated. At the same time, Frum is more focused on the self-interests of the whites.
Summary of Coates’ Argument
In his article “The Case for Reparations,” Coates provides some practical concepts on why compensation should be paid to the African Americans but fails to give an appropriate strategy for performing the act. However, he argues that the comprehension of compensations requires a significant subject in position regarding racial issues across the united states. Most individuals feel that his ideologies are only based on acquiring taxpayers’ money to be used in paying the descendants of slaves, not knowing that it is a step ahead towards protecting the good heritage of the nation. Coates tries to get the attention of his audience by explaining to them the importance of understanding the benefits of the impact the slaves faced during the regime of white supremacy. There is no guarantee that the discussion will lead to the reimbursements of blacks. Still, it is worth talking about and knowing its facts (Brooks 35). He claims that most Americans enjoy the benefits of the nation being great but forgetting the history that oppressed the blacks is why the nation is believed to be very great.
In the global phase, the U.S. is considered one of the most successful nations because of its governance and democratic standards that the citizens are accorded. The author believes that all the morals were generated from the harsh life that the slaves lived in the past days. He claims that in 1840, more than 59 percent of America’s exports were because of the strenuous efforts that the slaves gave for free (Andersen 12). A study by historians from Yale proved that in the past, slaves were considered more of an asset than being humans facilitating the reason why the whites who came from the south fought so hard to avoid the abolishment of slavery, proving that they were the central column of achievement.
In addition, Coates claims that the poor living nature of most African blacks in the United States can be directly traced to laws of racism that are still prevailing in the country. It is also clear that the blacks who were under the segregation of Jim Crow and slavery did not have the opportunity to realize the American’s dreams of meritocratic self-determination and prosperity because they were put under extreme darkness of truth (Ta-Nehisi 6). During the Jim Crow era, both political and education privileges were denied to black society. The properties they possessed could be grabbed from them, and the enacted laws could not protect them. Still, when the same scenario could happen to the whites, they had all the rights to be protected by the land laws. Besides, the aspects linked to the development of the middle class during the 20th century, such as new deals, G.I. bills, homeownership, and education, were not provided to the African American population.
The author illustrates Clyde Ross, who escaped from Mississippi to try to find a job in Chicago. The man is perceived to be very hardworking since he is determined to work and get the money that will help raise his family and remain with some savings to help him achieve his dream of owning a home. However, during his time, it was only possible for a black man to purchase a property in Chicago if he engaged himself in predatory contracts, consisting of inflated charges by the vendor for restricted protection (Ta-Nehisi 4). The passion for saving made Clyde take three occupations at the cost of his family’s time. His spouse also had to work with the Marshall Field to help in making ends meet while some of the children had to be educated in private institutions.
Despite all the effort and time, the wages that Ross could have earned and saved all went to make the white investors wealthier. However, he had to accept it since it was a norm during his time that any property owner knew that for them to be successful in America, the white community had to rip from them. The ideologies that African Americans had fixed in their mindset contributed to the consequences of oppression that they were facing. Their perception facilitated the implementation of policies that even legalized burglary for the black community. The penalties echoed beyond members of a family who were ripped off to civilization that spots the spectacles.
Despite all the adverse events that the past created for the blacks, the author’s article played a significant role in changing their state of living in the United States. The modifications that were implemented were seen after six years of his publication when it generated an intense debate that has seen numerous publishers differ with his concept. Furthermore, a bill is also before Congress for a serious debate on whether the united states should pay reparations to the saves or not (Bedau et al. 51). Another argument of Coates that has facilitated a strong debate is that he claims whites in the modern society continue benefitting from the exploitations that they carried out on the ancestors of the slaves; hence they are liable to be compensated. More so, if the black ancestors initiated the prosperity of Americans, then it is evident that the distribution of benefits in the country is not fair since the black community is seen straining towards getting an equal share that the whites are receiving.
His article has also led to a robust debate from scholars and black leaders who have been pushing for the reparations to the society of their race and equal administration of laws and freedom given to the white states. They have argued for a long period with phrases such as libertarianism when trying to convince Congress to pass the bill of compensation (Frum, 4). They say that the idea of reparations is valid to the blacks because of the oppression their ancestors experienced during the slavery era. Coates believes that his article will bear success when Congress realizes who should be entitled to the reparations and the strategy deployed towards all the beneficiaries get the compensation that the authorities will decide.
Summary of Frum’s Rebuttal
On the other hand, David Frum, a conservative political commentator, and an American journalist scripted a rebuttal of the concept portrayed by Coates. After acquiring knowledge of David’s essay’s ideologies, it is clear to any individual that the argument he is providing is very insightful and practical against a compensation settlement since it demonstrates a detailed comparison of how people in the society deal with racial factors (Brophy 41). From his viewpoint, compensation is believed to be taking the wrong path if the debate is based on the events in America’s history and race mindset. He accredits the provision of the same argument to be extended equally so that every citizen should benefit from it instead of only believing that one section of society played a bigger role than others in building the nation’s success.
Frum also supports a weird opposition to creating any developments in perspective. He cautioned that any damages program implemented to pay the descendants of slavery would eventually be expanded to other groups, creating another brand of inequality. He questions if the reparation will be performed on a targeted community, whether they will receive similar compensation per family or person, and how the program will measure the amount of compensation that is being given out to the beneficiaries (Frum 6). he argued that if the bill is passed. Reparations are delivered collectively and communally; differences in political impact, power, and wealth with the black Americans will be more imperative.
However, according to Posner and Vermeule, the government should focus on the various means of initiating the program without comprising the right of equality of all citizens (12). He suggests the payment of cash over a specified period since he believes it is necessary for self-enhancement. Besides, Frum states such methods will only raise more claims since it is only focused on African Americans asking that if the group is paid for subjugation and slavery, what about the different impacts faced by other groups such as Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Mexican American, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans (Andersen 21)? Moreover, he claims that if black Americans are entitled to some amount of money, then other groups should be considered for reparations.
Besides, Frum also objects to the program’s significance since he believes that there is no proper strategy that will ensure fairness for the people who need to be compensated since the level of suffering by their ancestors is not the same. Alternatively, he believes the debate will not be successful because it is hard to trace back the suffering of the past to the people of the present day since it is more than two centuries after the circumstance occurred (Horowitz 14). And suppose the government decides to admit to the program. In that case, there will be an imbalance of expenditure in the country because a certain group of people will have more money to spend than others resulting in inflation in the economy.
He summarizes the article by demonstrating that if reparations should be carried out, everyone should be entitled to benefit from it and not just a specific community. If the government is to carry out the process formally, then various questions need to be taken into account, such as who requires to benefit from the program and where the money to make payments will come from (Bedau et al. 33). furthermore, he claims that anyone who is advocating the debate of reparations has to be sure of certain things, or else they postpone the argument until they are certain.
An Argument for the Stronger Position
Based on the two articles, I believe Coates provides the strongest reasoning. Based on the evidence provided by (Harris et al. 17), any establishment founded on the past in the history of the united states is connected to the virtues of racism. Properties considered to have the best circumstances, such as land and public institutions, were confiscated from individuals of color. Coates’s argument brings his ideologies from the wall street situation, which the Tutsi group initially inhabited. However, the racist groups decided to displace them, for they had all the legal support provided to them by the existing authority even to build numerous public institutions.
I also believe his argument is stronger since it is ironic that the properties confiscated from the African Americans are of great value to the whites more than it is to the blacks. The concept led him to state the injury gap triggered by people of color’s extermination and their properties snatched from them by the white community. Hence, the descendants of black slaves deserve reimbursement to bridge the space between the poor and the rich. Paying African Americans for the pain their ancestors went through is very significant in connecting the accomplishment gap.
Furthermore, according to Michael and Yaquinto, 29, reparation will play a major role in narrowing the gap between the individuals who are considered middle and low-class inhabitants of the U.S. The African blacks are more underprivileged in various ways, such as job seeking, ownership of properties, rights to equal legal judgments, and police brutality that is still happening in modern society. I believe reparation will help improve their lives from the poverty line that is still subjecting them to so much oppression.
Moreover, slavery did not end with slavery since it is still manifested in other means in the current society. Therefore, it is clear that the white community receives more privileges compared to African Americans. Thus, reparation will play a significant duty in ensuring racial disparities are eliminated in the country since it will be a symbol of apology, facilitating unity. The author also states that the program will not be fair to some people since not everyone is poor, and it will just be an addition to the wealth they have, creating the possibility of inflation if the reimbursement is conducted through cash mode. He gives an example of prominent celebrities such as Herman, Beyoncé, and Oprah.
Cultural, Political, And Economic Context of Reparation
However, my take on Coates’s reparation may seem unsatisfactory to some individuals who might feel that I am wrong in a cultural, political, and economic context. From a political perspective, for instance, when President Barrack Obama was a presidential candidate, he rejected reparations despite him being from the black lineage by stating the political evidence of providing them with the compensation do not exist. Still, it is being advocated with an unpractical objective (Michael and Yaquinto 36). further arguments have also been noted, especially from the Republicans who believe that paying African Americans for their ancestors’ suffering is setting a price on them, which transforms into being an insult. They also believe that if the court ruled in favor of the black community, it would have a great consequence of dividing the country and generating challenges to make political coalitions needed to solve the problems the African Americans are going through today.
Another group rejects the subject in a cultural context since they believe it is only aimed at dividing the country within racial boundaries; by focusing on past injustice and talking about the previous events, blacks distance themselves from others by seeing themselves as the only people who deserve payment from the government (Brooks 53). The group rejecting the reparation for blacks claims that they fail to progress economically and in education because they have only concentrated on receiving compensation. Yet, they are not the only people whose ancestors were subjected to the slavery era. In addition, it is so unfortunate that the courts and Congress have also taken part in promoting the debate instead of focusing on the future goals of America that will include everyone and not just a specific group of citizens.
The final argument is in an economic context where the group debate that African Americans should not be compensated since the claim is only founded on enriching the community. This will be very wrong since there is still a group of white individuals who are also poor. They claim that the case should not only aim at the wealth of Africans. Economists believe that the action will be performed at the cost of taxpayers’ funds, which will make some sense of injustice to improve the country’s economy (Andersen 12). besides, most Black Americans living in the united states are not descendants of slaves since some are just immigrants from other countries, but the debate also includes them in the program, which will be unfair.
Recommendations
It is unfortunate that some groups still feel that it will be unfair to compensate blacks for their ancestors’ hardships in making the united states a great nation. The question at hand should be how, who, and when needs to be compensated. Therefore, in my recommendation, the government should find better strategies for ensuring the right people are entitled to receive the program’s benefits. More education should be given to the population that opposes the reparation programs by educating them that the program is not necessarily a means of making the blacks rich but apologizing for what their ancestors underwent. Moreover, I also believe for the program to be successful. Americans need first to address racial discrimination that is still in existence because it is part of the major barrier limiting the implementation of reparations. On the concerns of who should make payments, the united states congress can pass a bill that will see the people who benefited most from the actions of slavery to make a voluntary payment in terms of an added tax into a separate treasury account.
Conclusion
In summary, for America to completely accept the injuries of the past, an essential transformation must be performed in all establishments. Coates believes that most Americans have not yet realized that the nation becoming great today is because of history. At the same time, his opposer Frum says America is great today because of everyone’s effort in building the nation. Despite equal rights for both the whites and blacks today, it will be unfair not to compensate the African Americans who were never given the same privileges in the past, such as the right to owning properties and the right to equal distribution of the country’s resources. Therefore, if the country will decide to ignore history and act as if everything is normal, reparation will still follow future governments until they decide on the best way to solve the matter. Lastly, in as much there is difficulty in compensating the black, it will play a significant role in ensuring that the country has accepted its mistakes, thus protecting its status and heritage.
References
Andersen, Astrid Nonbo. “The Reparations Movement in The United States Virgin Islands”.The Journal of African American History, vol. 103, no. 1-2, 2018, pp. 104-132. University of Chicago Press. Web.
Bedau, Hugo, et al. Reparations for Slavery: A Reader. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
Brooks, Roy L. Atonement and forgiveness: A new model for black reparations. Univ of California Press, 2004.
Brophy, Alfred L. “The Cultural War over Reparations for Slavery.” DePaul L. Rev. 53 (2003): 1181.
Frum, David. “The impossibility of reparations.” The Atlantic, 2014. Web.
Harris, Leslie Maria, James T. Campbell, and Alfred L. Brophy, editors. Slavery and the University: Histories and legacies. University of Georgia Press, 2019.
Horowitz, David. Uncivil wars: The Controversy over Reparations for Slavery. Encounter Books, 2002.
Martin, Michael T., and Marilyn Yaquinto, editors. Redress for Historical Injustices in the United States: On Reparations for Slavery, Jim Crow, and their legacies. Duke University Press, 2020.
Posner, Eric A., and Adrian Vermeule. “Reparations for Slavery and Other Historical Injustices.” Colum. L. Rev. 103 (2003): 689.
Ta-Nehisi, Coates. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, 2014. Web.