The Case for Reparations

In "The Case for Reparations", Coates describes other notable instances of reparations; perhaps the most famous is that of Germany and Israel following the Holocaust. Germany paid Israel's government 3 million marks over the course of 14 years. However, the government merely acted as a central organization as all of the money went to survivors of the Holocaust, whether they lived in Israel or not.[5] Germany was given monetary incentives to pay off the charge as fast as possible. This deal was only struck with West Germany, which had just been under occupation by the Western Allies. East Germany, under the control of the Soviet Union, refused to pay anything.[6]

Other instances of reparations that Coates discusses include Belinda Royall, who in 1783 successfully negotiated for 15 pounds and 12 shillings as payment for fifty years of being enslaved, including being taken from her village in modern-day Ghana.[7]

Coates also cites the example of Quakers on the East Coast who required potential members to reimburse their past slaves in order to join.[7]

Throughout the article, Coates outlines some of the next steps the United States could take to address reparations. He builds off of previous scholarly works, proposed policy, and community-based ideas to suggest a comprehensive national discussion regarding reparations. "The Case for Reparations" repeatedly underlines the concept of reparations as a collective reframing of the history of the United States to a perspective more in line with the truth. Furthermore, the author calls for reparations to create a stronger connection between the country's practices of segregation, housing discrimination, white flight, and racist ideas with the current inequalities present across Black and White communities.

Drawing on Boris Bittker’s findings in "The Case for Reparations",[8] Coates suggests incorporating the $34 billion racial income difference into a reparations program (around $43 billion in 2023 after inflation), disseminating that amount every year for a few decades. Coates’ point that reparations are not discussed in the national policy realm is demonstrated through this, as this amount was discovered in the 1970s. Coates details the longstanding push for reparations by many scholars, and argues that if they had been broadcast on a national stage, the reparations process could have been well under way today.

To suggest an option for bringing case for reparations to the legislature, Coates highlights former Representative John Conyers' H.R. 40. H.R. 40 is touted as a starting point for a national discussion on reparations and increased research on the topic.

Coates uses this article to approach reparations from a broad lens, demonstrating the wide variety of approaches scholars have provided. He encourages a shift away from thinking of reparations as “a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe”,[7] reframing reparations as “a revolution of the American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history”.[7] Coates uses the ideas of Charles Ogletree to provide an example of reparations that is not direct monetary compensation, suggesting instead job training and public works to disenfranchised and impoverished individuals of all races.

One of the top forms of wealth accumulation is through housing and real estate ownership. Land and property are seen as capital that regularly accumulates value, thus making them incredibly dynamic investments and profitable for later generations.[9] The National Housing Act of 1934 was passed during the Great Depression in an attempt to make housing and home mortgages more affordable for low-income families. It created the Federal Housing Administration, which provided mortgage insurance for those who could not afford or would not usually be approved for traditional home mortgage loans,[10] as well as the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. After years of the FHA refusing to approve loans for African-American families, Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, creating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which was meant to make it easier for low-income people to be approved for housing loans and purchase real estate.[11] This act marked a shift with the government using private developers in the construction and development of public housing.

The privatization of these real estate developers, combined with the failure of the FHA to enforce anti-discrimination laws, created a predatory environment in which low-income, African-American families were targeted and approved for home ownership loans on a "for contract" basis, which meant they had to pay a monthly fee alongside their mortgage.[11] The contracts could be changed without the families' knowledge and with little government oversight. If a person could not make a contract payment, they would be evicted and forced into signing a new contract in order to have a home.[11] The houses that were being sold to low-income families were oftentimes houses that had not been normally on the market due to poor shape, bad environment, and a number of other factors.[11] Private developers being able to put in minimum repairs and sell houses on-contract made it so that once a family had bought a house, despite having to pay monthly contract fees, any repairs or issues with the house were their responsibility, a financial burden that often drove families further into debt, not being able to make the monthly payments.[11]

The National Housing Act and Housing and Urban Development Act were both presented as ways to assist low-income families to afford buying houses and property; however, it has continuously led to more debt and financial ruin for the families and communities that it was meant to help.

The Emancipation Proclamation was given on January 1, 1863, by President Abraham Lincoln.[12] It stated that all people previously held as slaves from that point on were free, and that the government, including naval and military authorities would protect said freedom.[12] It specified that freed people were eligible to join the army, that they should not be subject to violence, unless for self-defense, and that "in all cases, when allowed, they labor faithfully with fair wages".[12] It did not specify any consequences to the invasion of their rights, except that the military would protect freed people and that they should sometimes receive fair wages.

After the enslaved were freed, there arose a question of compensation to the slaveholders, because they saw losing their slaves as a loss of personal property.[13] The newly freed were not given any form of compensation for their trauma or oppression, or anything to start off with; they were freed, and that was seen as enough. The public did not agree with the idea of tax money compensating slave-holders, since they had believed that the tax-payers had lost enough money by freeing the slaves in the first place. Rather, they suggested that the previously enslaved should have to pay to compensate for the price of their freedom.[13] This began the practice of indentured servitude, in which African-Americans were made to work off their "debt", due to the fact that they did not have any form of capital to pay with.[13] Indentured servants were given a contract, generally around 10 years, during which they would work without wage, oftentimes living on the farm or plantation that they were working on, until they had paid off the projected debt of their freedom. If they committed a crime or otherwise displeased their employer, their contract could be extended.

In summation, after the Emancipation Proclamation legally ended slavery, African-American citizens were then submitted to indentured servitude in order to compensate the slaveholders for their loss of profit and capital, i.e. their slaves.