Ta-Nehisi Coates Revisits the Case for Reparations
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
- Will reparations, whether monetary or through some kind of program, actually improve the state of the community in a sustainable fashion? When the money runs out / the program ends / etc. will the improvement stay? Or, will it be a continual welfare program that can never be safely removed without massive negative impact once everyone is used to the benefits it provides?
- Will reparations actually solve the societal divide, end the continual accusations of White Privilege and systemic racism, etc. or will those narratives continue unabated, having been rewarded by success in the form of the reparation program itself?
As to your first point, Coates gives Chicago as an example of a "less significant reparations program." This includes a permanent change to how they teach history, which he regarded as being crucial.
Another example is a change in criminal-justice policy.
Both of these (I have good reason to believe) would improve the community and be sustainable, yes.
I don't see anything in the essay which can be considered a "continual welfare program", so I don't know what you refer to. The proposed compensations are all "for specific acts" of legalized discrimination.
Your second comment appears needlessly binary. Coates gives an example of Jewish reparations in Israel after the WWII. Those reparations did not solve anti-Semitism. Then again, the narratives did not "continue unabated."
Since neither of your two outcomes happened, if I interpret your argument to mean that those are the only two acceptable outcomes, then are you suggesting that those Jews should not have received reparations? If not, then I don't know how to interpret your question in the context of reparations for slavery and legalized discrimination.