What are, “reparations?” The general definition that comes to mind is to make amends between others who have been wronged or wronged each other. Through the American education system, we have learned in-depth about the struggles of African Americans as time went on. America was discovered, but slaves from Africa were brought back. The land flourished, but the slaves perished. Then, the law was improved, but African Americans still suffered – even today.
Do African Americans today deserve to have reparations of the wrongs from now-deceased people, and which happened to them hundreds of years ago? Absolutely. Coates, the author of, “The Case for Reparations,” strongly believes that the black community has suffered enough and can contribute to a developing society only if their roots of damage can be healed partially through reparations. Williamson, an author who reviewed Coates’ argument, believes that while it would give moral justification and a moving act of amends to the public, it should be progressed from so today, society can focus on the economy, jobs, and duties of America. Both arguments have some rhetorical appeal to the audience on the situation, but Coates’ essay is more effective in the debate of reparations.
Williamson agrees that Coates’ rhetoric can be touching to the soul, it moves others with some story accounts of the African American struggles. But, in the end, Williamson does not agree with Coates’ overall argument and believes he is completely wrong about the assumptions that it could fix the social injustice in America. Coates makes a valid point throughout his argument: “We cannot escape our history. All of our solutions to the great problems of health care, education, housing, and economic inequality are troubled by what must go unspoken.” and the fact that older African Americans feel as though their grandchildren should be the ones fighting for reparations, so African Americans today do not have to struggle as African Americans did in the past (Coates, 55).
127 our experts are availableright now
This statement is strong because it includes all three rhetorical tools: logos, pathos, and ethos. The claim here includes logos because it is undeniable truth that we cannot abandon the history of what has been done to African Americans, and instead of only appealing to what would please African Americans, Coates explains it is important because it is unspoken and needs to be addressed. Pathos is used because again, the reader is reminded of how older African Americans suffered greatly since the claim was also followed by Clyde Ross’ pleads for the younger generations of African Americans to stand for reparations so they do not have to experience the social injustice from before. Williamson agrees in the sense that this method makes Coates’ argument convincing for the public.
However, Williamson believes that Coates can head in another direction with these claims. Instead of these problems being recognized nationally, it should be recognized as a local problem, when he states, “Blacks probably should extend that skepticism, or even transfer it, to the welfare state.” (Williamson, 3). Along with this, Williamson does not believe Coates has analyzed the benefits that have been given to African-Americans in the past, such as the New Deal, and that Coates does not take into consideration that society in America is still developing and working on itself. Williamson constantly berates all of Coates’ claims on page 4, arguing that whites are busy with the success of their own (which seems logical since everyone in the real world must fend for themselves), but there are many programs to help poor communities and African Americans. Coates’ does not appreciate and is being inconsiderate of the benefits that have been given to African-Americans as the social situation in America continues to repair, according to Williamson.
However, by Williamson doing this, he is proving one of Coates’ points/rhetoric to be correct – “The popular mocking of reparations as a harebrained scheme authored by wild- eyed lefties and intellectually unserious black nationalists is fear masquerading as laughter… white supremacy is not merely the work of hotheaded demagogues, or a matter of false consciousness, but a force so fundamental to America that it is difficult to imagine the country without it.” (Coates, 51). Instead of the white man helping the situation, it is becoming a mockery and seen as normal to set aside the thought of reparations.
Coates’ rhetoric use in the argument is more appropriate for public disclosure than Williamson’s rhetoric. Coates’ appeals mostly to emotion while explaining an issue, which enables the reader to sympathize with Clyde Ross whether the reader is black, white, or another race. The qualities of his argument make the article better for public disclosure and can persuade others about his concerns on reparations.
Coates is very passionate in all his statements – he frequently mentions allusions that can capture the mood that some readers can experience. For example, he mentions an allusion to the bible at the beginning of the article before he begins his argument (Deuteronomy 15: 12-15). This strengthens the bond that Catholic/Christian followers will have toward his rhetoric and evoke a moral judgment standard within these people since Coates will follow his quotes with race/socially questionable circumstances that occur in America. These readers may feel most compelled to speak about the problem in a way that could serve justice to African Americans. When Coates mentions different allusions, he can describe his argument in other perspectives and explain the situation in different words, but still by another person which reassures that more people share his concerns.
Williamson, on the other hand, does not truly appeal to pathos or ethos. Williamson is already considered a “white man,” which automatically makes the reader’s mindset feel as though Williamson is not entitled to his opinion that introduces negativity since he writes about Coates’ argument being unhelpful for the remedy of social injustice. Williamson has not experienced what a colored person has gone through growing up – life in an urban community, the low-quality education system in specific locations, and discriminations of equalities and opportunities.
When Williamson condescendingly addresses points that Coates’ has made, it damages his rhetoric and does not make his counter-argument convincing. Aside from ethos, Williamson does not try to appeal to the audience by invoking any emotions other than frustration and anger. It is as if Williamson does not sympathize with what African-Americans have gone through. There are a few instances he does sympathize with them, such as when he states, “It may very well be the case that African Americans will never, no matter what policies are enacted, catch up economically with whites.” (Williamson, 7). Williamson agrees that African Americans have it rough and it can be hard to have justice with the policies. But Williamson is also confirming that he is contributing to the system which keeps the poor communities (and black people) poor, and the social ladders the same despite the struggles poor people will face of being born into that state.
While Williamson’s pathos may be weak, he has a stronger appeal in logos. However, the tone addressed in his argument makes his argument seem rude rather than informative or trying to help the situation. Williamson critiques Coates’ essay passive-aggressively at first, but then continuously rebukes Coates’ arguments and claims saying why it is flawed. While it is not wrong to rebuke another’s argument, Williamson did not improve his rhetoric with a passive or mildly neutral approach on a sensitive topic. Especially since Williamson is not a person of color who has never experienced struggles that African Americans have faced, it seens as though Williamson does not take the argument or topic seriously – which could be interpreted into being annoyed of black people’s push towards an equal social standing.
To conclude, Williamson’s article gives insight into what some people think about reparations when it comes to African Americans. Typically, higher up white males may think they have already done enough for African Americans, or that nothing more needs to be done because society in America is fine. Williamson’s argument, however, is not appropriate for the public discourse since it gives a “hate” vibe from his article for addressing a sensitive topic with little sympathy or pathos use.
To improve the public discourse, we must continue with programs that help develop poor and African American communities, create equal opportunities for all Americans, and work on developing the urban environments which create a setting for bad influence among young children of any race. The situation should be approached with an open mindset before judging the benefits that have, “already been given,” to African Americans and other colored people who struggle.
