Tah-Nehisi Coates On Reparations Essay

Tah-Nehisi Coates’ essay on reparations has been received with welcoming arms in contemporary America. He appealed to the mainstream educated liberals who would most likely read the Atlantic magazine. One would be skeptical about reparations due to the impractical nature and irresponsible way of dealing with the injustices done to African-Americans through slavery. This harsh man-made institution with its legacy of racism and exclusion still puts African-Americans at a disadvantage in today’s times. By the end of Coates’ essay, one would be convinced of his argument. The major reason was that Coates did not simply argue for simple monetary payouts to African-Americans. When one knows America’s sordid history concerning slavery, and institutionalized racism as a continuing problem arising from such slavery, monetary payouts seem to be nothing more than a band-aid shielding a greater problem.

Some reparations may be helpful in achieving its goals, while some are not. Ultimately, the differences matter for the legitimacy of the present case. Those with a conservative stance on politics will use monetary compensation as a plausible argument against reparations. How would this process work? Would one have to prove African lineage in order to receive monetary compensation? Furthermore, would monetary compensation bring about a complete “acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences,” the broader point of Coates’ essay? One can easily surmise that there can be no price that can fully capture the historical plight of African-Americans. If this is the narrowest definition of reparations, then conservatives and critics at large have plausible objections to be