Coates: Hi Mr Williamson. It is a pleasure to finally be able to meet to you discuss our views on reparations.

Williamson: Hello Mr Coates. Likewise. If it is alright with you, I would like to dive right into the crux of the issue. I don’t see how reparations would work. Would you kindly care to first summarize why you think we should be heading towards reparations?

Coates: Gladly. First I think we can both agree that our country has had a longstanding history of racism, which can be evidently found from Slavery to Jim Crow laws, housing policies, bank lending practices, just to name a few. These factors combined lead to the harsher socioeconomic conditions lived by Black people.

Williamson: Certainly.

Coates: I think because of the crimes committed against Black people across our history, Blacks have a right to a hearing and a right to restitution. Our nation needs to come together and have a serious debate on reparations.

Williamson: Let me respond to that before we continue. You argue in your article that reparations would close the wealth gap, provided full cooperation by the whole of society. On the contrary, I think you are severely miscalculating the future. Reparations would NOT close the wealth gap and other socioeconomic differences between Black and White people. If we run simulations of equalizing incomes of Black and White people, the economic differences would still take years to disappear, if they were to disappear at all. In fact, Black people are financially risk-averse compared to White people.

Coates: That could be explained by our racist socioeconomic policies that have discriminated against Black people.

Williamson: I agree, but even providing Blacks with the same incomes as Whites would have a long-term effect of Black people having less net wealth due to poorer saving and investment decisions.

Coates: While I do think saving and investment decisions are a separate issue (which could also be explained by our discriminatory policies that led to such psychological behavior), and while I do appreciate your insightful argument, I think you are missing a crucial point of mine entirely. Reparations is not only about closing the wealth gap, it’s more about having a national reckoning. I think our nation has a tendency to look away from past atrocities. Reparations would stir serious discussion and provide us the ability to face our past sins, our shared history of White preferential and Black disadvantage. Having this discussion would ease up the pain on both sides, leading to spiritual renewal and a maturation of our nation. In fact, if you look at Germany, the only nation to have ever paid reparations — German reparations had psychological and political importance that entailed acknowledgement and moral convictions, leading to renewal.

Williamson: While that is a fair assessment, reparations entails preferential treatment, disproportionately benefiting Black Americans. I think your view of our societal relations are perceptive, but shrouded. You fail to consider all sides of the equation. You claim that the Obamas had to work twice as hard as everyone else. Compared to whom? We should be careful to be throwing around such claims, because if you assess the validity and truth of that statement, you would be faced with a difficult task because to whom are you comparing them to? Were the Obamas as oppressed as White orphans? Or as White immigrants fleeing the Third Reich? Or as White women in poverty-stricken Appalachia? Some Black people are born into well-off households, such as you have. Some White people are born to drug-addicted single mothers. That does not make only one of these things matter more than the other.

Coates: I think that we shouldn’t be bringing in political conditions of other nations when comparing the Obamas and talking about the Black experience in America; without a doubt there are horrible things that have happened elsewhere, but we should more so focus on our nation’s history which I feel is more relevant to the purposes of our discussion of reparations.

Williamson: Fair enough. But as I have mentioned before and would like to re-emphasize, reparations would entail preferential treatment. I argue that your interests should not only be linked to your kin group. When we are talking about addressing racism, preferential treatment would be counter-intuitive as it is inherently racist policy too, only encouraging further racism. You would be fighting fire with fire. It is morally better to treat people as individuals.

Coates: I am not convinced. I see value in collective efforts to address a minority group’s needs. Though you seem to be arguing against preferential treatment, if you look at present-day America, a lot of policies are still in place that are preferentially geared towards White people. The loaning industry is a huge example, carrying their racial profiling practices from the late 20th century over to today. I think reparations would certainly level the playing field instead.

Williamson: While I do think that our society is a work-in-progress with much flaws in the system, it takes a long march to a more Perfect Union. Leveling the playing field would only hamper relations and work against the interests of Black people. If you look at Jewish and Asian immigrants who were quickly able to close their generational wealth gaps, they’ve not been met with universal warmth or welcome here in our nation. Likewise, closing this gap between Black and White people would only incite further hatred.

Coates: Good on the Jewish and Asian immigrants. Just because it may be true that there are some sentiments of unwelcome towards them, doesn’t mean we should be discouraging this. If anything, blame should be placed on the assailants, not the victims. I am not convinced, and I believe that closing the gap between Black and White Americans would work in the interest of both peoples and for our nation as a whole.