A TLDR of your question, there's lots of bigotry related things that would still apply to Europe, but US race based discrimination is kind of an amorphous thing that doesn't exactly sit the same way in Europe and lots of the racist historical and current baggage the US has just doesn't apply to Europe. Many European governments (or established charters and laws) pre-date the existence of racism itself, white-man's burden, and then white mans vitriol post reconstruction. The US, being a slave owning country where slaves actually resided in mass had laws, institutions, and to a large extent even religious practices that incorporated this black-only-slavery ideology into its construction. This kind of thing just doesn't exist outside of apartheid states and states with extremely clear defacto racial-status ties (ie like many countries in south America, former African colonies).
Lots of people are not from the US and giving you an awfully bad European perspective on this issue. The history of racism in the US is very complicated. Race issues in the aren't some American fairy tail made up to get right wing Europeans angry. At the same time, the US does not have the same "assimilation" issues that Europeans seem to be exacerbating. This is despite the US often having much higher numbers of those same minorities Europeans complain about. US race issues have nothing to do with "assimilation" nationalist dog-whistles.
The US was also unique in that these people they enslaved were not from the same place and that the slave owning caste were the clear majority of the country and very obvious who they were visually, which differed from Caribbean and some south American slave owning countries.
From the beginning the US was beholden to slave owning states. From the 3/5ths compromise, giving some initial disproportionate power to southern slave owning states, to the way the US even elects its president with the electoral college, a solution that was meant to be temporary until a better compromise could be made, to the restriction of the expansion of the house of representatives until a full standstill in the early 20th century.
However, the most important timelines to follow were just before and everything after the civil war, which despite being the mark of the end of slavery, ended up being a rebirth of racism in the US.
Prior to the civil war, for most non slave owning people, even in the south, those that were racist, were racist in a "white-mans-burden" kind of way. Basically that all the "poor dumb brown people needed the white mans help". The thought was, in some ways, slavery and colonialization actually helped non white people, it was a favor, pity/patronization. Closer to the civil war, the deep south in particular was partial to the "Curse of Ham" justification for black people in particular being slaves. Basically, black people "sinned" in an old testimate story (despite race never being mentioned) represented by Ham, son of Noah, and the father of Canaan, and were cursed:
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
So they used Genesis 9:20->27 as a justification for not only why black people existed, but also that they existed to be slaves of white people biblically.
Now lots of people will try to say it was only Mormons who believed this. This is absolutely false. Mormons used a similar justification, but the curse of cain was used instead, and not really in relation to slavery, more so explaining the existence of black people. But Mormons also initially (very briefly) were anti slavery and were abolitionists before frontiersmen in Missouri started forming mobs and attacking settlements in the city of Independence for being anti-slavery after anti-slavery messages were put up by members of the church. Joseph smith soon announced that Mormons were pro slavery publicly, and told members that abolitionists teachings shouldn't go outside the Mormon community (and during Brigham Young years, Mormon policy was explicitly anti black, but didn't care about slavery). For context, Mormons believed a race of white people who had an advanced civilization lived in the US prior to the European discovery of North America and battled with Native Americans who won, and at some point, Mormons professed that if indigenous peoples believed hard enough they could turn white. So the curse of cain justification wasn't really needed for slavery, just for white exceptionalism.
So racism was very interconnected with religious institutions across the south (and even propped up a whole new sect of Christianity as you can see). This is starkly contrasted, again, with this institutions of Europe, who might have been heavily anti-semetic, but hadn't caught on to this whole "white people are the supreme race and it's justified by scripture" thing.
Immediately after the war, and when black people actually were told they were free black people would have been seen a lot more like ethnic foreign worker racist stereotypes are today ("Hard working poor people!" in a pitying tone) as at least some black Americans were able to relatively quickly start farms form businesses etc... The problem was that all the previous slave owners still existed. And how those people viewed black people, and how the general political elite in the south viewed black people was different than how the lower class white people, who still roughly held on to "white mans burden" kind of thinking. These people viewed them as straight chattle, as exactly equivalent to farm animals, work horses, or even a toaster or car. And felt just as mad if the government told you that you had to give your car the right to do what it wants, and you must pay your car to drive you. This is white mans vitriol, the entitlement to control what black people do and go, and the superiority over black people. These people hated black people and hated more the fact that they couldn't do what they wanted with them anymore, and they wanted to do something about that.
In moves similar to rhetoric around migrant workers today, the former slave owning/slave benefiting aristocracy started pumping out media about black people "stealing jobs" and taking opportunity from a white populace still suffering from very recent post reconstruction damages. I'm simplifying this a lot, but basically coming from white mans burden, these people saw it as unfair that the people who were thought of literally as inferior to themselves were getting jobs and opportunities better than them. This parallels with white mans vitriol is a sort of jealous ignorant analog to it. Vitriol because they think people who don't deserve even as much as they have are getting better than they have. We still kind of see these two different parallel mind-sets exist today, an aristocacal version of explicit racism and a lower class version of explicit racism with different rationales.
This was only the start of the "rebirth" of racism in the US however. Soon after, due to the lack of Union oversight in the south, and the lack of will of northern politicians who, despite just freeing black people, still weren't not racist, black people would, en masse, find themselves illegally jailed. While slavery was illegal in the US, you could still make prisoners perform slave work with even less regulation. States, using police institutions which started out as slave catching institutions, would arrest black people on bogus charges, or if they could get away with it, just straight up jail with no charges and send them to prison camps. In an age of increasing demand for electricity these black workers would often find themselves in coal mines, except, because they were now expendable prisoners, they went in with virtually no protective equipment, and often worked in even worse conditions than what they may have had to deal with in agricultural slavery, and whose wardens were often former slave owners. States would then make millions in 19th and 20th century dollars, encouraging states much further north than the union, confederate divide to partake in similar exercises. This practice didn't really end until the world war I and had a double effect. It broke up families constantly, and associated black people with crime almost explicitly, as 80% of arrests in some states were from black people alone, who even in the states with the most black populations would not make near that of the entire population. This used to be called Slavery 2.0, but some Unionizing movement has started using the phrase, so I'm not sure if it still historically described as such, but this excerpt in wikipedia describes a bit of the practice.
This system also was used to eliminate the black voting populace, along side lynchings. After the Union won the Civil war, Lincoln republicans were hoping that lots more republican representation would come from the south, now that all former slaves could vote, reducing former separatist political power. Instead of this the south continued to kill black people, but also employed some of the first usages of gerrymandering, poll taxes, poll tests, voter ID, and a plethora of other voter restriction laws that still exist today in many southern states (and some which were re-introduced literally in the last couple of years). However it gets worse. Not only were black people effectively blocked from being able to vote for almost another 100 years, remember that 3/5ths compromise we talked about earlier? Well that was gone, which meant that each black person counted as a full person in the south for representation purposes. The power of the south grew politically post reconstruction because of this, and as almost a direct result, much of what Lincoln republicans were trying to accomplish was stamped out by future president elects.
In addition, at the time, your vice president had to be from the opposite party, so when Lincoln was assassinated, Andrew Johnson became president a reconstruction Democrat, who opposed black protections in the south and hugely contributed to the voter suppression issues there and stopping Lincoln republicans from signing laws that would have stopped such practices, and with the growing power of southern states now that black people counted for full representation and also couldn't vote, basically guaranteed it would take a long time before such laws could ever be enacted.
After this the first Jim crow laws were created, which lasted until the civil rights bills were passed cerca 1965, but jim crow laws and segregation didn't fully get eradicated for public schooling until 1971, and then not fully eradicated for private schooling until 1978 (which we will get through later) and for some areas effectively didn't need to happen at all (again another topic). During this era, particularly during the 20th century well after the end of the civil war, confederate statues were erected, in direct contrast to modern right wing gaslighting, these statues were erected specifically because of reverence to racism, not to actually honor confederate leaders (though there are a scant few exceptions, and those often pre-date the civil war, and they are in the minority), black people could not occupy certain jobs, black people could not enter entire towns, black people were segregated. In addition lynchings are continuing especially during the early 20th century, as well as state sponsored genocides like the tulsa race massacre in 1921.
During this period of time, we also see white flight as black people headed to cities for jobs, white people fled the city, and made sure black people couldn't follow, not just defacto, but legally explicitly couldn't live in the same areas as banks wouldn't give loans or relators wouldn't sell to them. Because of white flight, some major cities, especially northern ones who didn't have media spotlight on them, and were the locations to move to during the great migration, didn't really... desegregate. This left some cities, like St. Louis in odd situations, where virtually no white people, to this day, live in the city, and virtually all the wealth in concentrated in the surrounding metropolitan area, and because of historical decisions, St. Louis, unlike Chicago, Kansas City, New York, and other major US cities separated itself economically from the county, meaning none of the county tax revenue hits the city, leaving it with a tonne of expenses and no tax base. This caused St. Louis school districts to fail and become perpetually horrible places for education, as only teachers who have no other options or are on government grants to teach there temporarily actually teach there, and destitution is highly concentrated. This pattern can be seen across the country and the best solution come up so far is to simply let the students go to other schools if their parents want it. In Missouri this program exists for students to simply go to better school districts if those school districts allow it. Some schools must accept students on accreditation failure of that students school district. But not all parents in those school districts to this day are okay with this. This came to a head fairly recently when one school district lost its accreditation, and parents eventually forced these poor kids back to the school district that received a basically free accreditation for doing nothing to fix the problems. In fact this problem is so bad, public transportation in some cities literally isn't allowed to head into white flight areas, such as, again, St. Louis, because many suburban white people are afraid of black people and block such measures.
Getting back on track chronologically, after the civil rights act, things get even more complicated, and efforts to subvert and oppress the black population get even more convoluted, if a tad bit less personal as the entitlement of the actual control of what black people did in particular started to fade. First, for the European audience, post reconstruction, to simplify, the Democrats were still basically the "racist party". It wasn't until Lyndon Johnson that basically changed (voting rights act) and Lyndon Johnson himself was a bit complicated (he was initially a lot more racist but became sympathetic to some black issues as he realized his own upbringing paralleled with the black experience). But after the voting rights act Democrats basically compassed both the republican demographic and the democrat demographic politically, putting republicans in a bit of a squeeze in terms of their own relevance. Political strategists of Richard Nixons time used the voting rights act as an opportunity to swap the political alignment of political racists and racist demographics towards the republicans, using something called the "Southern Strategy", swinging them back into relevance. In addition Nixon utilized the war on drugs to dismantle the black communities (via raids) who now were aligned against the Republican Party, something continued by Reagan later who via drug usage demographic sentencing disparities (ie crack cocaine penalties being order of magnitude more than powder cocaine penalties) disproportionately harshly sentenced black people, in addition mandatory minimum sentencing.
Speaking of Reagan and going back to the 60s for a bit, the Black Panthers had just started out in California (where Reagan was governor). The Black Panthers actually have a muddy kind of short history, which have since been gaslit in some US schools as the black equivalent to the KKK (the "new black panthers" are not a positive group, are explicitly rejected by living original black panther members and messed up the legacy), but were not an anti white group but instead started out as a group trying to protect themselves against police violence. In fact, even initial anti gun legislation can be tied back to racism in the US, with Reagan, who also later came out in support of the assault weapons ban. The black panthers had basically started displaying fire arms in order to dissuade police attacks on black people. Police then complained to higher ups and then it came to Reagans desk, where he restricted gun rights to allow police to take more violent action (and restrictive policies remain in place to this day in california), effectively because black people were brandishing guns. After that the black panthers engaged into community efforts, but then the FBI got involved because of anti-communist and anti-black reasons and J Edgar Hoover basically dismantled the group with arrests and various police raids and shoot outs causing the hierarchy of the group to be dismantled.
Next we roll into back into the 1970s, where we see that even abortion is a race issue in the united states. While it might come to a surprise to many Europeans, who are used to a mostly catholic, or protestant-that-models-catholic-denomination, where "life begins at conception" is common theological mantra, in the US such justifications for being against abortion are not native to the majority of at least the evangelical protestant population in Christianity. In fact in 1974, 76 the southern Baptist convention affirmed that women should have access to abortion, and experts say evangelicals largely saw abortion as a catholic issue at the time. After the civil rights act some towns in the south evaded de-segragation by simply going to private all white schools, until 1971. In Coit v. Green, the supreme court ruled that any organization which practiced racial discrimination could not be tax exempt. Mormons responded to this by simply saying "Black people are okay now" in their scripture (and if you know Mormon history, they basically always do this kind of thing, change the whole ruleset if they need to adapt to new conditions). The leaders of these evangelical schools instead got really angry, and started trying to push back politically by organizing the evangelical base. They formed something called the "moral majority" poking evangelicals with various issues until they could find one that struck a chord with a enough elbow grease. That big issues they found was abortion. Decades after Row V wade, and only a couple of years since the SBC had basically said abortion was a-okay, Ronald Reagan a candidate explicitly against abortion as part of their platform was being pushed as their candidate (who wouldn't you know also didn't like black people and did other things to them as we saw earlier).
During this whole time, voter suppression, black criminalization, continued to persist (and still does). Those police institutions that were formed during the reconstruction era to basically re-slave black people? They might not have been able to force them to work in mines anymore, but they were still putting them in jail and exercising their right to basically do what ever they wanted, though at this point how much racism was actually involved highly varied (in the cities it was usually just straight up abuse, but in places like Ferguson, the police officers regularly made fun of black people and used the N word), and resulted in numerous incidents that we see everyday of disproportionate violence.
I'm missing major parts and events I'm sure, but basically it should be clear that race, and in particular racism against black people is tightly knit with US politics, religion, ideology, housing, and institutions, and that it isn't simple, and still effects the US to this day. It isn't a globally orienting philosophy however, the way black people in the US in particular have been and are treated is pretty unique to the US. Though that doesn't absolve other countries of racism, its just that they have a different type of problem than the US has, east asian racism against black people comes from a different place than US racism for example, and is not really black specific.