' The Case For Reparations Rhetorical Analysis

Should the United States Federal Government pay reparations to the descendants of slaves? In a Pew Research survey, Carrie Blazina and Kiana Cox analyzed the attitudes of White and African Americans toward reparations for slavery. The survey highlights addressing historical injustices as slavery continues to impact social, economic, and political dynamics. 77% of African Americans believe reparations will rectify past wrongs and achieve racial equity, while 80% of White Americans are doubtful or opposed. Most White Americans are unaware of the impact of slavery on the inequalities faced by African American communities. Some say reparations are unfair and believe they should not be responsible for historical injustices. Some are concerned about

With a blend of historical narrative, statistical analysis, and personal anecdotes, Coates describes countless ways in which African Americans have been disenfranchised throughout American history. However, critics argue that reparations could be complex and worsen racial tensions. Some argue that there would be challenges in finding out who would be entitled to reparations, how much would be paid, and how to handle logistical issues. From the brutal abuse of enslaved Africans to the discriminatory housing policies of the 20th century, he traces patterns of oppression and structural inequality that continue to shape the lives of African Americans. Coates examines tales of lynchings, massacres, and racial terror acts against African Americans by white supremacist organizations like the KKK. Coates reframes the concept of reparations as a moral imperative rooted in historical wrongdoing and the pursuit of justice. He compels readers to confront the human cost of America's history of oppression and reckon with the moral debt owed to people who suffered as a result. Moreover, Coates challenges readers to analyze how the struggle for reparations is about fundamentally reshaping the social and economic structures,

They differ in how much they emphasize specific data and evidence to support their arguments, leading to varying levels of emphasis on the factual basis for reparations. Coates and N’COBRA agree on reparations for African American slavery. However, they both have different definitions of what makes up reparations and how they should be implemented. Coates defines reparations as a moral imperative to address ongoing racial inequalities and to provide redress for historical injustices inflicted upon African Americans. N’COBRA defines the advocacy for policy measures in financial compensation, education and healthcare investments, and community development initiatives. They both agree on the quality of reparations to achieve justice and equity but differ in their emphasis on moral imperatives versus practical outcomes, leading to various levels of focus on the qualitative aspects of reparations. Both stakeholders understand the importance of having broad policy changes to achieve reparations. In contrast, their approaches to achieving reparations through policy forms have different advocacy strategies and priorities. While they share common goals regarding reparations for slavery, they approach these issues from their viewpoints and prioritize distinct