I think that is extrapolating beyond what he actually says.
And just for the record, reparations is one thing I’ve changed my mind about over the years. I was dead set against the idea, but have come to believe that some form or reparations might be appropriate.
You might as well be speaking another language, because I can’t make heads or tales of this. The reasoning is so alien to me I’m not sure how to respond. I read this statement about reparations as “this is the best tool against white supremacism”.
Thanks for sharing this – what changed your mind?
Do you agree that if a person is not in favor of reparations, then they cannot be said to be fighting against white supremacy? That is something the Coates did say, and that I disagree with. It’s part of the same “you’re ether with us or against” attitude that I think was so dangerous during the Bush administration is not constructive in this situation, either.
I think is the statement you’re referring to: “One cannot propose to plunder a people, incur a moral and monetary debt, propose to never pay it back, and then claim to be seriously engaging in the fight against white supremacy.”
From my reading, that’s talking about America, not individuals, because most of us have not “plundered a people” or “incurred a moral and monetary debt”. I think America has plundered a people (multiple peoples, actually), and incurred that debt. And I believe that, as whole, America is not seriously engaging in the fight against white supremacy. America has successfully fought aspects of white supremacy, and even successfully defeated very significant parts – slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, for example. But I don’t believe at this moment that America is seriously engaging in the fight against all aspects of white supremacism (which extend deep into our justice system, our housing systems, our education systems, and more).
That’s how I read this Coates quote. When he talks about “plunder” (which is a recurring theme in his articles), he’s talking about the country as a whole. America plundered Native American lands and people. America plundered African American property, labor, and bodies. And America owes that moral and monetary debt due to this plunder.
No, I’m referring to the entire quote, from which you left off this portion:
“Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy.”
If it is indispensable, that means one cannot dispense with it and still be fighting against white supremacy. Do you agree with that?
You are reading the statement incorrectly. Coates is not saying it is the best, among other tools available. He is saying that reparations is a necessary condition to be considered serious about fighting white supremacy. It’s required. That’s what indispensable means.
As to the reasoning, I was too subtle it seems. I was making the same leaps of logic that Coates makes to illustrate the weakness. Coates doesn’t care that people may have other reasons to support Trump - he simply dismisses these other reasons as not exonerating. If Coates can make these leaps, is that so different than making the leap about lack of support for reparations means support of white supremacy? He’s carved out this position where the dial is at 11, brushing away any semblance of nuance. Just like when you group together bias, bigotry, racism, and white supremacy as basically the same. That’s just not how language, or the world works.
I am in the same boat, and Coates’ essay on it was what changed my mind.
I will freely admit I went in to this article completely against reparations. I count this as one of the top two or three revelations that led me from being a neocon, to libertarian, to what can only be described as a liberal with democratic socialist leanings.
For one thing, I think it is shameful that reparations were not paid upon emancipation. But I was concerned about identifying who was and who was not eligible for reparations, and that we’d end up dividing people by having to issue an official statement of who was “black” and who was not. But I got over that. 
I shudder to think of what you will become next. 
Right? It’s been a 20-year process, I keep thinking I’m done, then…
For the country, yes. And I think the rest of the quote makes clear he’s talking about the country. For individuals, I don’t know, but I don’t think he’s talking about individuals. As for “indespensable”, I think that means that one cannot dispense with it and successfully fight white supremacism. I can fight against climate change, but if I don’t have any power or influence (or am unable to get it or persuade those with it) to change government policy, then I’m unlikely to have any success.
For the country, I’m inclined to agree with him. And that’s what I think he’s talking about.
This is not how I read Coates. The difference is in how we interpret and understand what Coates wrote and is saying. And I’m not grouping all those things together as “basically the same” – I think there can be and often are differences. But I think we understand them differently.
I’m not sure why you keep changing the specific words he uses. He did not say “successfully”, he said “seriously”. Those do not mean the same thing.
I think your interpretation is wrong on both fronts. Coates isn’t talking about the entire country when he’s talking about support for reparations. He’s talking about Bernie Sanders, the individual, and at the time the presidential candidate. Saying that the article which is dedicated to commenting on Sanders is really about the country is a misreading of the point of the article.
Regarding your inclusion of the word “successfully” in the phrase where Coates says indispensable, that’s not supportable either. He says plainly, that one (an individual) cannot be serious about engaging the fight against white supremacy if one is opposed to reparations. Serious in this context does not mean successful. I think part of the reason you need to re-interpret his actual words is because what he is actually saying is not supportable.
How else to interpret these:
Here, it’s basically take your pick of descriptor.
Here whether or not a person has white supremacist beliefs, it doesn’t matter if we call them white supremacists or not. That’s how I read Coates and I think it’s both incorrect and ineffective.
I think he means both, based on my reading and understanding of his many articles and statements on the subject beyond this specific quote.
So you’re saying that Coates believes that Sanders has plundered black people and owes a moral and financial debt to black people? I think that’s less likely than that he’s talking about the country as a whole, as he has done many times in other articles.
“One” could also be a country. And unless you think Coates believes that every white person has personally plundered black people, then I think the most likely reading is that he’s talking about the country as a whole. He’s talked about plunder many, many times, referring to the country as a whole.
I think society is infused with all these things, even though there are differences. I think it’s highly likely that I have unconscious racial biases that I’m unaware of. I think it’s likely that most people do, of any race. I don’t believe that having unconscious racial biases means one is a white supremacist, though it does mean that one has been significantly influenced by a white supremacist society and culture.
I agree with Coates on this. I don’t think it mattered at the time whether or not George Wallace personally believed in segregation and white supremacism. By spreading that rhetoric, I think it was reasonable to call him a segregationist and a white supremacist.
I don’t know what Trump personally believes, but based on his many assertions and actions that gave aid to white supremacists, I’m not going to tell anyone (especially not someone who has been personally on the wrong end of white supremacism in their lives) not to call him a white supremacist, even if I’m not sure if I would.
I forgot to add, as very clear examples, that Coates stated directly that he doesn’t believe that George W. Bush or Mitt Romney are white supremacists.
It’s clearly not what he wrote in the article.
I don’t think Coates much cares whether Sanders himself has personally plundered. That Sanders benefits from what Coates sees as the spoils of that plunder, then he is culpable. That’s the only way reparations makes sense, collective guilt.
That’s not the only way reparations make sense IMO, but I think reparations would be best left to another thread.