I don't see your comment as addressing the same thing at all.
The land of the free was never really a thing. If you are even considering that as part of the discussion, I think you're being naive. America (us and Canada) just has a lot of resources in the sense that it was guaranteed to be a world power for geographic reasons. ("Guns, germs, and steel" is an interesting, but accessible, but also dated, discussion of that)
Any trivial understanding of US, European, or world history will show you the same. Getting people to interact well with out groups is extremely hard. especially in the event of diaspora.
My ancestors, like most of everyone poor brought to the new world, were transported here as human garbage. They weren't taken as chattel slaves, but a share cropper or indentured servant is still not something to be admired either.
We're talking about addressing racial issues. My ancestors were "non white" whites. They disappeared because they didn't have an observable difference. We're now addressing the observable ones.
I very much don't disagree, but one of the reasons we hear about these issues in the US is that we have a much larger "minority" (meaning not the people in power, even if there is a plurality) population.
In places like South America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, there's either a homogenous population where this doesn't make sense as a criticism or it's just not being reported on. There's huge amounts of racism all over the world.
The US and Canada have problems, but there are going to be pains as we identify and try to correct these racial injustices.
Remember: while colonialism and triangle trade slavery were the worst examples of racism, and the West invented that, it did not invent racism.
What it did invent was feeling bad about racism and trying to improve things.
This is not to defend or deflect anything. It's more that I find "consciousness raising" to be effective.
You have a "plausible" explanation of which there isn't really any good evidence, and where the lack of evidence is a condition for the explanation.
In any case, you're assuming that a "little" decision like supervising Epstein one on one was was made by an exceptional person (and presumably as intelligent as yourself), but the reality is that anyone accomplishing big things needs to delegate almost all of their work.
The people operating there were not viewing this event as too special. Most people who are that forward thinking are not in that position.
did someone in power get a note saying "this is likely to happen and here's how to prevent it", and it get burried.
That's just how reality works.
If you followed up and dealt with every low probability event (and most events of interest are low probability and most every low probability event would get a note about it in a large, properly functional government), first, it would be impossible, and second, you'd end up doing more harm then good.
It shows up best in the medical field because who doesn't want to catch a disease earlier? Right? And, no matter who pays for it, there is money in extra medical treatment (despite the harm that unnecessary medical treatment causes, and the fact that if you underscreen, you also cause problems, and those are more likely to embarrass you).
The jist is when you screen (like a mammogram or some political quant writing a note about their thoughts), there is some probability that the information is wrong.
A false positive is when you find that event/question/prediction/whatever A is true, but it is not in fact.
Then there's false negative, when you find that A is false, but it is not. (Additionally, true positive and true negative)
When you screen for "rare" events (which includes a lot of things that we might not think of as rare, or rare enough, like breast cancer or potential criminals), a vast majority of the people that screen positive will be false positive. The lower probability the event, the higher the false positive rate. It doesn't really matter much to the math what the false negative rate is.
This is extremely counter intuitive to people, even when you've been shown the extremely simple math, it takes a while to internalize.
This is just a trivial example of Baye's rule.
It's also why you'll never be able to treat mass shootings as a mental health issue or predict crimes unless you're willing to put a lot of innocent people in jail.
The important thing to remember here is that there is always a risk-reward trade-off. No matter what you do, you're always making a choice, and doing nothing is also bad for you.
It's one thing to open up the skull to give a locked in individual a much greater quality of life.
It's a completely different thing to treat toenail fungus with a drug that has a sufficiently high probability of killing your liver (and killing you or requiring a transplant).
Are they really?
I suppose they must be. They're not even domesticated, but people be trying to farm them.