Slavery has stained American history. Although it existed all over the world, it has an abiding effect on American history. Many people attempt to look past the dark period of slavery when discussing America’s greatness but it is an unavoidable issue. Brent Staples and Ta-Nehisi Coates take varying stances on this issue of the lasting effect of slavery. Whereas Coates uses emotional appeal to argue that slavery has had a resounding effect on modern society and is the reason for the subjugation of the black body, Staples employs a logical approach arguing that blaming slavery for modern issues is misguided.
Coates and Staples start their arguments in very contrasting ways arguing different ends of the spectrum. Coats starts with an extreme claim …show more content…
After making his claim, Coates utilizes gruesome imagery of slavery to further his point of the stain of slavery on modern America. Coates often uses the image of “blood” on American achievements to display the tradition of America. Coates talks of how the “blood that watered the cotton… created the first fruits of the American garden.” This horrifying image Coates employes depicts the cruelty of slavery and how America abused it to gain it current position. The idea of the “first American fruit” being fed with slave’s blood sends a powerful message. It makes Coates white moderate and conservative audiences feel uneasy, as they cannot deny the fact of slavery. On the other hand, Staples gives a conditional statement for the counterargument he has proposed. Coates makes no mention of the counter argument, which hurts his credibility as he is not appealing to his critics, while Staples starts with his counter argument, gaming capability from his whole audience. Staples states that target compensation is “legal and morally just”. By using these words, Staples’ appeals to both his audience is a political and emotion manner. Staples then continues to provide instances where there was “specific enough” evidence to justify target compensation. By providing legal cases where the idea of target compensation was used successfully, he gains authority on the …show more content…
Coates uses a plethora of metaphors to show the value of the black body. Coates compares slaves to “Indian land,... a beautiful wife, or a summer home”. He then defines being while as having the “right to break [black] bodies”. This is very ironic as these black bodies are considered very valuable. Typically valuable items are cherished and kept safe but in this case they are valuable because they can be broken.Coates then ends on a powerful metaphor saying “a mountain is not a mountain if there is nothing below” and then proceeds to say “[We] are that below.” This metaphor would have a resound effect on the audience as Coates is implying that the distinction of being white is subordinating blacks. Coates black and white readers would feel dejected by the presented argument as it is very pessimistic. Unlike pessimistic tone employed by Coates, Staples analysis the counter argument and reaches a logical conclusion. Staples finally addresses the shortcomings of the counter argument saying it is “a bridge too far”. Staples dispute the idea that black americans are owed a “debt”. As he has already gain authority on the topic, Staples logically concludes that “there is no provable connection” between slavery and modern issues of poverty and illiteracy. He accuses reparation advocates of reaching their argument “unwittingly”, implying