There is ZERO public evidence to suggest that this shooting had ANYTHING to do with race, yet here you are, trying to give a history of race relations in the country as if they have anything to do with this single event.
All I am suggesting is that we suspend assigning blame or motives to either party until the facts are in. Could this have been racial? Maybe, but I have seen nothing to indicate that is was. Could this shooting be justified? I don't know, perhaps it can. From the little video that I have seen, it does not look good, but I have not seen all of the evidence.
But what I can say is that if the man that was shot had complied with the LEO's instructions, most likely, he would not have been shot. While I cannot state that with any degree of certainty, I can assume that there would have been no other reason for the police to draw their weapons.
There is plenty of evidence that the disparities in outcomes between black and white people in the country is race-based. So much so that the point is essentially irrefutable in honest discourse.
The point about systemic racism isn't that in any one situation an overtly racist person commits a racist act (though in the George Floyd example a likely explanation is a person who isn't actively racist, but probably at least unconsciously so, committed a racist act). It is that the systemic problems we have not addressed led to a situation where, once again, the outcome is dire for a black person.
As I said (so many) pages back, this doesn't excuse lawbreaking, including resisting arrest, and it doesn't mean we should coddle people who have proven they are a threat to society. It does mean that we need an honest reckoning about race in America so that we can try to address it.
Cincy above noted some programs aimed at addressing historical inequities, like affirmative action. There is this strain of thinking that affirmative action (1) unfairly harmed white people (and men), and (2) that as a result, black people actually have an advantage in today's America (or 1980s/90s America). But for all that chatter, it would be difficult to find a white person who would voluntarily switch with a black person if that included all the other issues a black person faced in his or her life. And the research (and anecdotal evidence) on the black experience in America is that even with race-based quotas or even just preferences, black people continued to face much greater challenges to their success than white people. That doesn't mean white people don't also face challenges--we do. But the mere fact of being black adds significant challenges, even when coupled with affirmative action and programs of the like.
So why are we talking about this here? Rioting is not ok. Destroying people's property--or government property--is not ok. But labeling Black Lives Matter protesters as domestic terrorists because some people (including some white-supremacist agitators) infect their demonstrations feeds into the "everything is ok, there's no racism here" narrative, and attacks their idea--one that is hard to argue with honestly--that black people are still suffering from unfair policies. Responding that "All lives matter" is not ok. When people said "Vegas Strong," or "Boston Strong," the reaction wasn't, "No, America strong."
Earlier Kris, I think, suggested colorblindness. Read my farm example: is everything ok at the end?