One of my favorite pieces of writing that use quotes to integrate my position is in my third paper. At that point in the essay, I am talking about how Congress doesn’t want to pass reparations due the catastrophization that it will be awful for them. I write, 

“From the perspective of Congress, I believe there is a fear that reparations are a form of retribution and attack on whites and that admitting responsibility for this would degrade who they are as people. Coates writes, ‘The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world’ (29). Personally, I do see the perspective Congress holds. 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 legislation that I did not write? And why should I put funding into a study that will prove me otherwise? Coates responds that ‘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’ (pg. 33). I have to agree with him. We need to stop catastrophizing and start thinking critically about HR 40. If paying money seriously affects the racism in this country, I would be willing to do so.” 

The reason I like this piece is that it provides multiple functions of supporting my essay’s claim. First, I am explaining how reparations are making congress feel. Second, I am bringing up a conflict that actually goes against the point I am making in the essay. Lastly, I resolve the conflict providing new insight from Coates and conclude my point.