The analogy I really liked about this involves a game of monopoly between two players.
Player 1 gets to take 100 turns while player 2 sits on start.
So for 100 turns player 1 is accumulating wealth and property. After this player 1 probably owns most of the board.
Then player 2 is allowed to start, and the two players take turns as normal.
And they play, taking turns, for 100 more turns. But this only widens the disparity between the two players because player 1 was holding most the cards by the time player 2 was allowed to participate. So for most of the turns player 2 is just landing on player 1's property and paying rent.
Player 2 complains this is unfair.
Player 1 says "of course it's fair, we've both been following the same rules for 100 turns now"
.
Even if we assume black people are being treated completely fairly now relative to white people (which is not a given) the disparity in their starting positions has still created systemic inequalities. The analogy is a bit over simplified, but it should be easy enough for all but the most obtuse to understand.
Now make the analogy correct.
You have 8 monopoly players. You have 1 monopoly player take 100 turns first. Then 7 other players get to play for 100 turns with the 8th player. The 8th player is even more rich. The other 7 players are poor but vary some. 4 of those players were White. 3 of them were African-Americans.
Was the issue race? Or economic?
---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik PSN User Name - Corrik7 Currently playing: Control (X1)