The Case for Reparations: An Incongruence between “Well intentioned and Wellbeing”

In the terminal chapters of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ A Case for Reparations, and in tandem with Coate’s speech on reparations before the U.S House, Coate’s moves away from the turmoil of a narrative embedded in strife, and turns towards what reparations might look like in a present-day context. Despite the fact that reparations have in fact been enacted in West Germany, who paid a sum of 7 Billion Dollars to the newly formed state of Israel, who in turn used the money to spur economic growth, the preliminary negotiations did not evade opposition, nor did they evade episodes of rioting, violence, and terrorism. Given that both German’s and newly patronized Israeli’s, most of whom bore witness to the atrocities of the Holocaust, displayed opposition towards an act of moral repair, we can begin to understand that making the case for reparations in America will be no small fleet.

Unlike Germany, our atrocities have been both visible and invisible, racialized and colorblind, overt and systemic. Furthermore, we live in a society where roughly half our citizens see racism solely as a phenomenon that existed between 1492 and 1865, failing to rationalize the ongoing struggle for equality. This failure to understand the totality of racism’s elongated narrative is not solely reserved for our conservative contemporaries, but also for our neoliberal and progressive peers. These are the individuals, who despite posting black squares on their Instagram feeds and wearing Biden-Harris buttons on their jackets, pose the most danger when making the case for reparations.

While progressives are generally happy to entertain the ideas of social egalitarianism and attend protests aimed at curating a culture of social justice, many are just as happy to attend institutions of higher learning such as NYU or Columbia, paying for their courses, housing, and books with money that once rightfully belonged to black society. In this sense, the issue is not that of social justice, but rather of heritage, and remembrance. We are just as quick to remember the names of wrongfully murdered African Americans, as we are quick to forget that it was our ancestors who held the gun to their heads in the first place. We are just as bothered by student loans as we are unbothered by the fact that Black citizens could never obtain them to begin with. Coates understands this problem all too well.

This brings us to the question of culpability. While it’s obvious that most members of society would agree that the whips and shackles of slavery are highly immoral, we falter when connecting our present selves with those who committed the very practice we now chastise. It’s the cognitive dissonance with rationalizing our history that puts progressively minded individuals in a state of such discomfort, that as a society we cannot properly move ahead in enacting positive changes such as committing to the cause of reparations. In this sense, the most outspoken and seemingly progressive members of society, who strive to never do wrong, fall silent when confronted with even the slightest possibility of guilt.

Unfortunately, white guilt does little to address the problems of the past, and does even less to prevent the inevitability of racism’s future. White guilt is a special kind of self-centeredness that appropriates the victimization of marginalized cultures, and puts us, privileged white thinkers, at the forefront of the conversation. However, whether or not we like it, we’ve inherited stolen wealth, benefited from federal programs that held black citizens in a constant state of inferiority, and taken advantage of opportunities that communities of color could only dream of. It’s for these reasons that myself, and Ta-Nehisi Coates, believe in the necessity of reparations. However, I can also say that until white progressives (myself included) can make peace with their historic role as oppressors, even when family becomes involved, forward is a direction that we will dare to move towards.