Revising 2 Paragraphs:
Original:
L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation. They refuse to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country due to the lack of education on the subject. The lack of education on the subject of racism can be seen in the not-so-recent movement of Black Lives Matter and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood and has caused much trouble/hesitation in getting the bill passed. “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” (Coates, part 3 para. 14). The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years.
Revision:
L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. They explain that the practice of vindictive protectiveness is “turn[ing] campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation since the aggressor is playing the victim. The U.S. government refuses to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country. Due to the lack of education on the subject, many white people feel as though they are being “attacked” by the black community to pay these reparations for something that these white people perceive as untrue or too far in the past to be “their problem.” The lack of education on the subject of racism can be tied to the on-going Black Lives Matter movement and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood and has caused much trouble and or hesitation in getting the bill passed. Coates explains 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” (part 3 para. 14). HR 40 is proposing the study of reparations not demanding reparations immediately which is the big misunderstanding here. The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years.
Exp: I mainly tried to explain my quotes better towards what I am trying to claim for the whole paragraph. Better explaining the quotes makes the paragraph sound more coherent and argumentative. I also added introductions to the quotes so they are no longer free standing.
Original:
The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (Coates part 3, para. 12). The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years. Yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong. The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the comfort zone that the U.S. created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long. OR The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes.
Revision:
The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. Coates provides an example of white supremacy/white fragility in the following quote, “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (part 3, para. 12). The government presents as “not interested” when discussing the bill, which exemplifies the idea of white supremacy by the majority white government choosing not to even consider something that could benefit minorities and maybe even the whole country. The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years, yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong. The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. Dweck’s idea of fixed mindset can be attributed to the government’s way of thinking about HR 40. Dweck describes that “[f]rom their [the students studied] more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the intelligence and the comfort zone that the U.S. has created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long.
Exp: In this paragraph I also tried to explain my quotes better. To do this I added in the idea of white supremacy/white fragility to make my explanations better since they were extremely vague and or suggestive without these terms included. I also added in intros to the quotes and brackets when needed.
