Paragraph 1 Original (Introduction):

HR 40 is a bill that would fund the studying of the efficacy of reparations for African-American citizens. Both Democrats and Republicans of Congress have rejected the bill, leaving it with no legislative support. Coates writes that this “suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential.” He is noting that even though this is a bill that is simply to study the idea of reparations, the fact that we deny it as a country is representative of where we really are in terms of racism in America. Personally, I do not think reparations are the way towards equality in this nation, but through studying it we can find the best way towards this goal. Maybe this study will prove me wrong.

Revised:

It has been 67 years since the Civil Rights movement started in 1954. Throughout those years, our nation has made massive progress in ensuring legal equality for all minorities. Still, now in 2021, there is much work to be done, as the black population is still being held back economically (and therefore socially) from one-hundred and fifty years of oppression. HR 40 is a bill that would fund the studying of the efficacy of reparations for black citizens. Surprisingly, both Democrats and Republicans of Congress have rejected the bill, leaving it with no legislative support. Ta-Nehisi Coates, an American author, defends the studying of reparations writing that our reluctance to “suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential.” He is noting that even though this is a bill that is simply to study the idea of reparations, the fact that we deny it as a country is representative of where we really are in terms of racism in America. Using examples, also, from Carol Dweck and Lukianoff and Haidt, we can understand why HR 40 isn’t being passed and whether it should be in the first place. Personally, I do not think reparations are the way towards equality in this nation, but still, through studying it we can find the best way towards this goal. Maybe this study will prove me wrong.

In this paragraph I tried to add more of a hook and introduce the sources I am using more clearly. Also I tried to present the what I am talking about in this essay more clearly.

Paragraph 2 Original (Body Para. #1):

The reason we don’t want to study reparations is because we don’t know what the results will be. This paradox is a result of the catastrophization of those who would potentially suffer from the institution of reparations. Lukianoff and Haidt write that, “Burns defines catastrophizing as a kind of magnification that turns ‘commonplace negative events into nightmarish monsters.’ Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as believing ‘that what has happened or will happen’ is ‘so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it.’” From the perspective of the majority, there is fear that reparations are a form of retribution and attack on whites. Personally, as a descendant of an immigrant from Ireland who came to America in the 1850s and suffered great oppression in Boston upon arrival, why should I pay for the damages done by slave owners, racists, and unjust legislature that I did not write? By avoiding the conversation of reparations, those who think they oppose it don’t actually know what they’re opposing, but in their head, it is catastrophized to the worst possible option.

Revised:

The reason Congress doesn’t want to study reparations is out of fear that they don’t know what the conclusion will be; that it won’t be the answer they are looking for. This cycle of avoidance is a result of the catastrophization of those who would potentially suffer from the institution of reparations, especially the wealthy white population. David Burns defines catastrophizing “as a kind of magnification that turns ‘commonplace negative events into nightmarish monsters’” (qtd in Lukianoff and Haidt para. 25). From the perspective of Congress, I believe there is fear that reparations are a form of retribution and attack on whites. Coates writes, “Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future.”  Personally, I do see their point. As a descendant of an immigrant from Ireland who came to America in the 1850s and suffered great oppression in Boston upon arrival, why should I pay for the damages done by slave owners, racists, and unjust legislature that I did not write? By avoiding the conversation of reparations, those who think they oppose it don’t actually know what they’re opposing, but in their head, it is catastrophized to the worst possible option. Congress needs to get over their fears, and face this problem with the facts, and they can only receive the facts if they pass HR 40.

In this revision, I focused on connecting Lukianoff and Haidt to Coates and added a quote form Coates to achieve this. I also cut down the original Coddling quote because it was unnecessary and tried to clarify the point of this paragraph.