The problem being, that systemic injustices are not a relic of the past, but rather a pervasive force even in the modern era. There's plenty of evidence that supports that black and latino minorities are heavily effected by current injustices. The easiest example would be to highlight the sentencing differences between crack and powder cocaine. Until 2010, with the passage of the 'Fair' Sentencing Act (relatively more fair, not entirely fair), the mandatory sentencing for the drugs at a ratio of 100:1, meaning that the same mandatory sentences were applied for possessing 100 grams of powder cocaine as for possessing 1 gram of crack (which, with the passage of the FSA, reduced the ratio to ~18:1).
Of course, differences in mandatory sentencing have little to with race... right? However, here comes the issue with the difference. Whites were far more likely to be found in possession of powder cocaine, while Blacks were far more likely to be founded in possession of crack. This is beacuse powder tends to be more expensive and harder to manufacture than crack, thus economic barriers affect who has which version. This of course resulted in huge differences in how long each race were forced to stay in prison, and eventually, the a large lopsided racial make-up of our prison systems. Furthermore, compounded with the failure of the correctional system to... well... correct, and the disparity of hiring between whites and other racial minorities, helped fund the circular prison cycle we all know love. Thus, a circular system arose, blacks, especially males, were caught as a result of wide sweeps by police targeting black communities (beacuse the stereotype is that black communities have higher drug use, and were thus racially profiled). Then, blacks were caught in overly long prison sentences, swelling the prison population. Upon release, these individuals combined with the disparity in hiring based upon race and lack of a higher education, were forced to survive by doing the only thing they had access to, criminal activities.
Also, to note, the consensus in the scientific community is that the effects of crack and powder are the same, the only difference being their form. So any justification of the mandatory sentencing ratio is pretty much void on the basis of effect.
So, why does this matter? Well, your statement was that you don't see how "focusing on exposing a system will change anyone's life for the better". With the passage of the FSA in 2010, at least a step in the right direction to reduce racial disparity in the prison population was created. Furthermore, in 2011, I believe they passed more legislation which allowed the federal government to potentially reduce the sentences of many inmates sentenced on non-violent drug charges under the new changes. However, this change for the better would never have existed, had there not been some effort to expose the injustices in the criminal justice system, through lobbying by non-profit groups, and even yes, protests.
Exposing flaws in the system is simply a step in the right direction, showcasing issues and hopefully allowing for those in power to at least attempt to address these issues and promote changes/fixes.
I think my above reply is at least some evidence enough, and I don't really think I have it in me to write much more (my AC is broken, RIP me, I'm slowly dying), so I'll do something light
https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf
This is a study by Devah Pager, a professor of sociology currently working at Harvard. It's widely acclaimed and often used as the cornerstone study to showcase racial discrimination in hiring, and while it's closing in on being somewhat dated (2003 publication if I'm remembering correctly), there have been a plethora of other follow-up studies that corroborate her findings.
In the study, to be put shortly, she tested to see how a name (and the racial connotation it brings) affected one's chance at being called back for a job interview. In summery, she found that the racial connotation of a name strongly affected one's chance of getting called back, so much so that white males (she did other studies on gender with race as well I think, or it might have been other people) with a criminal record were more likely to get called back to a job than black males without a criminal record and with higher education. You can imagine how much call backs black males with a criminal record got.
Thus, the issuing being, is that if it's a lot harder to obtain a job, often your access to resources is drastically reduced. Furthermore, this often pushes individuals to criminal activities often just to survive.
Now, I think your argument is that socio-economic systems don't actively seek to hurt most minorities, which is correct. However, racism has updated since the conventional terminology before and during the Civil Rights era. No longer is it the overt, KKK, "Let's lynch them all!" racism, rather it's become covert, acting to hamper the opportunities of minority groups all while putting on a cheerful smile.
I doubt that any of this will change your mind, but I might as well post this beacuse I've just wasted ~an hour typing :P. Rip me.