So lets say you have a really big balancing scale[1].... And there's a chute that's been feeding twice as much sand to one side, for hundreds of years.... Wh

So lets say you have a really big balancing scale[1].... And there's a chute that's been feeding twice as much sand to one side, for hundreds of years.... What do you do to balance it? a) Distribute sand equally to each side b) Distribute substantially more sand to one side c) Make like the imbalance did not happen and ignore it. If the answer is obvious to the above, then why is leveling the field for historically disenfranchised people an issue? I am referring to Black Americans and Native Americans. Nigerian Americans are some of the most successful immigrants[2]. Asian Immigrants, Hispanic Immigrants, Indian Immigrants, Eastern European immigrants, all tend to do decent well. What do they all have in common? They are immigrants! Immigrants that don't have the baggage of hundreds of years of oppression in their new country. They used to be disadvantaged in their own country. But coming to a new country does something... a new start. I should know, my parents where such immigrants. But Native Americans[3], and Native Blacks (as in not recently immigrated) continue to do the worst in the achievement scale. Maybe, just maybe... we start realizing that they both share the same initial crutch.. the scale was tipped way against them, until quite recently.[4] And yes, nitpick my points away, the underlying issue is still valid.. immigrants tend to do well in a new country, imbalances can't be corrected by neutrality going forward, and historically disenfranchised people tend to do bad in the country they are disenfranchised... see poor asians in asia or in india... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=balancing+scale [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-12/africa-is-sending-us-its-best-and-brightest [3] http://indianyouth.org/american-indian-life/poverty-cycle [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Ethnic_Placement_Act