- Identify the four passages where Coates mentions/discusses/describes HR 40, the bill to study reparations. This is the bill that never passes the House, and it’s important that you have ready access to the “places” where Coates discusses it. Quote each mention. Be thinking – hard – about what’s up. Pay careful attention, because Coates is really after more than “how much would it cost.”
- Part 3 (mentioned 2 times), 9,10
- Coates suggests in the first mention that the JUSTICE of reparations may be the issue, not the $. What do you think he means by this? (in Part 3)
- I think the way the word justice was used in this sentence (“if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point…”) was meant to convey that reparations are complex and not many people are really integrating the intention of giving justice to those who were wronged. Justice for those individuals means calling out and admitting the severity of the wrongdoings against black people in America.
- In the second mention, he says it’s probably something more “existential.” That perhaps reparations has to do with our EXISTENCE as a country. What might a racial reckoning mean for American democracy? (In part 3)
- I think a racial reckoning would mean the re-writing of our whole democracy. From my understanding of what a racial reckoning might be, the U.S. government/democracy would have to be completely rearranged since it was built/made for white men and white men only. A racial reckoning would bring more POC into spaces where they can stand up for and make decisions on behalf of underrepresented communities instead of a whole bunch of white people trying to rationalize what is “good” for the minorities in the country.
- In the third mention, he perhaps helps us out a bit by suggesting reparations is a kind of threat. What’s that seeming threat? What do you think about it? (In part 9)
- HR 40 simply pokes at white fragility, that is why reparations seem “threatening” to a lot of white people. HR 40 is specifically calling out the history of the country that has been constantly whitewashed and has been pushed under the rug. After learning so much from the Black Lives Matter movement over the past year, I have seen time and time again that many white people simply just don’t believe any history past “We win wars” and “This country is free” which it most definitely is not. Of course reparations are going to feel threatening, they are asking a whole country to confront its terrible past. But the threatening feeling should not last if you actually understand why reparations are being requested.
- In the fourth mention, Coates observes that a reparations conversation might help us out of a “childhood myth.” How does what Coates has detailed challenge the American “myth” or story of itself? (In part 10)
- Coates states “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” which shows exactly the point I was trying to make in the last question. The childhood myth that he speaks of is the one where Americans think we are the best country in the world without digging deep into why we think that. The “childhood myth” aspect to me sounds exactly like blind patriotism, which I know we were all taught as children (ex. Standing and saying the pledge of allegiance every freakin’ morning not knowing why we actually did it). Coates discussion challenges the story of America since the U.S. has completely disregarded that dreadful past. It’s long overdue to crush that childhood myth so we can all learn the dark, painful, but true history of the U.S.
Meep<3
