My point is that the analysis I am seeing in the two videos uploaded and discussed here, are too emotional. I am not dismissing them, I think they are honest reactions, that need to be heard.But, as an analysis, because of the emotional part, they are limited and/or wrong. I do not doubt that there people out there making good, well thought analysis of this problem since the 60's, 70's, 80s... But when I do see you writing the word "subtle", I cannot help but remember that it is very easy to confuse subtlety for "unverified underlying assumption".
There is one giant elephant in the room that is simply being ignored (in this thread I mean). In all the talk above, when people say that the "social contract is not being observed" (which is by the way a very clever and concise way to put things), people are not referring to one single death, as tragic as it may be. If the social contract is failing, those things are happening in a mass scale. If they are happening in a mass scale, you then need to look at the data. In that regard, ANY conclusion reached without looking at the data is COMPLETELY void.
Now comes the important part. If people are so sure that the data will show what they think it will, fine, roll up your sleeves and show your point. Nobody (or almost nobody) would be able to argue then. Or the effort isn't worth the price? Of course it is.
Someone could say, "but oh, data is corrupt'" (in the US I frankly doubt it, it could be, up to a point, here in Brazil). Well, anyway, if you put your hands in the data you would be able to prove, or at the very least show huge inconsistencies, in the data, and that would prove that something "sistemic" is wrong. (by the way, I really think systemic racism or institutional racism are very idiotic concepts. If racism is not coded in words, it is then present on people, period. Get it out of the people, you get it out of the system. If people are not racist, and you show them race injustice, they will act. If they are racist, they will not. It is as simple as that.)
Or, in other words: We can understand the riots as the voice of the unheard, but we cannot rationalize it and use it as a political tool. The ones that can be heard can do better than that, are obliged to do better than that. We cannot forget that part.