Reading Response: The Case for Reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates
April 10th, 2023
I need an explanation for this English question to help me study.
Struggling to find relevant content or pressed for time? – Don’t worry, we have a team of professionals to help you on
Reading Response: The Case for Reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates
Get a 15% Discount on this Paper
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Answer any combination of the questions below on Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “The Case for Reparation” (Links to an external site.) (one or more). Write at least 300 words. You can use this response to help develop the ideas you will use to support your thesis in Paper 1.
Please write at least 300 words. Reply to at least two other students’ posts — be specific.
- “In part 2 of this essay (“A Difference of Kind, Not Degree”) Coates paints a grim picture of black Chicago, citing statistics on homicide, infant mortality, incarceration rate, income, and household wealth. How does he use these statistics to construct his argument, and how persuasive is it?”
- “Coates argues that ‘America begins in black plunder and white democracy, two features that are not contradictory but complementary’ (para.60). How was democracy intertwined with and dependent upon slavery, according to Coates?”
- “Coates asserts that ‘one cannot escape the question’of reparations ‘by handwaving at the past, disavowing the acts of one’s ancestors, nor by citing a recent date of ancestral immigration’ (para.57). How, according to Coates, do contemporary white Americans, who had little or nothing to do with slavery, still reap benefits from the historic oppression of African Americans? Why does he believe that there remains a debt to be paid?”
- “In ‘The Case for Reparations,’ Coates makes only passing reference to reparations in the first two sections. He discusses the concept in detail in Part 3 (‘We Inherit Our Ample Patrimony’), but devotes the next four parts to the history of black exploitation, and white supremacy, returning to the topic of reparations in the final section. Why does he take so long to introduce the main subject of his essay? How does he develop the case for reparations in the four parts that never mention the idea? What would be the effect of focusing more exclusively on reparations throughout the essay?”
