The Case for Reparations

“The Case for Reparations” concentrates solely on the question of whether or not reparations ought to be paid, and concludes that they should. Coates does not delve into the separate topic of what form those reparations should take. He demonstrates that the idea of reparations has been around a long time, and in some ways they were taken more seriously in the past. He cites a former slave named Belinda Royall, who was granted reparations by an American court around the time of the American Revolution. Royall had been brought to the colonies from Africa and forced into bondage for 50 years. When her owner fled to Britain during the war, she was freed, but she felt she was due more than her freedom and sued for compensation. A Massachusetts court awarded her 15 pounds and 12 shillings out of the estate of her former owner. At that point, Coates writes, slavery had existed for 150 years already and “the idea that [slaves] might be owed something in return was, if not the national consensus, at least not outrageous” (Part III).

As time went on, however, more people did consider reparations outrageous. Though some African Americans continued to seek reparations, those opposed argued that former slaves had gained enough to counteract their enslavement: They had been freed, taught to speak English, and had the ideas of Christianity bestowed upon them, which would not have happened had they stayed in Africa.