Question 1
- “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill, now called HR 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (p.15).
- “That HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential. If we conclude that the conditions in North Lawndale and black America are not inexplicable but are instead precisely what you’d expect of a community that for centuries has lived in America’s crosshairs, then what are we to make of the world’s oldest democracy?” (p. 15).
- “Perhaps after a serious discussion and debate—the kind that HR 40 proposes—we may find that the country can never fully repay African Americans. But we stand to discover much about ourselves in such a discussion—and that is perhaps what scares us. The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world” (p. 34).
- “John Conyers’s HR 40 is the vehicle for that hearing. No one can know what would come out of such a debate. Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders” (pp. 39-40).
Question 2
I believe that Coates means that the justice of reparations can only be achieved through actions that rewrite the American system in a way that isn’t rooted in racism and discrimination. The harsh reality of that is what white Americans don’t want to consider and they would rather throw money at the problem than actually work to solve it. However, money won’t ever solve the problem; it will ultimately make the situation worse and the problem will undoubtedly continue in the foreseeable future.
Question 3
A racial reckoning would mean a complete re-write of our entire American democracy and our governmental and societal systems. We have to begin anew and build a country that profits on the diversities of individuals and strives to build a positive and equal environment for everyone.
Question 4
The “threat” that reparations poses is to the America that currently exists today. I believe that it is necessary to start over and strive to build a foundation that truly demonstrates equality and freedom.
Question 5
What Coates has detailed changes the childhood myth that we all grew up learning. The idea that America is the greatest country in the world and that we are the “heroes” has been propagated to children for years, and that’s just not the case. America has tried so hard to erase its racist roots and upbringing and because of that, its issues with racial discrimination continue and will continue in the future unless we face the problem head on and deal with our history.
