> I'd like to see that argument, if you put it next to racism in the US. Racism towards Turks in Germany might be a slur on the school yard (which, I can assure you, was much more commonly used by Turkish kids), not slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.
Sure, I haven't pretended the two countries had exactly the same social and political environments. The respective outcomes for the different minorities aren't exactly the same either.
I'm not even sure what your argument is now: you appeared to be questioning the existence of systematic racism in the US, and yet are now insisting it was extremely bad. If your claim is instead that systematic racism was extremely bad but actually had no discernible effect, that's pretty extraordinary.
Though perhaps not as extraordinary as you choosing to support that with the claim that ---checks notes--- mid twentieth century Germany is a good counter example of a society where migrants didn't encounter any adult racists. Surely you're just trolling for Godwin's Law there.
> If racism isn't the great explanation, other explanations need to be looked at. You chose to neglect the fact that African Americans are not at all similar in the outcomes, even though they're all experiencing racism in the US, and were, by and large, always treated as a singular group.
I'm not sure the fact some African Americans do better than others in any way detracts from the argument that systematic racism is a thing which negatively affects the group. Not all outcomes of shootings are the same; this is not evidence bullets cause no harm. We can look at as many complementary explanations for ethnic minority underperformance as you like, and it's not going to remotely undermine the OP's claim that racism has an effect.