Racial Bias and Support For Foreign Conflict

Post Reply New Topic

What counts as "foreign conflict" specifically? Are they saying Americans are more likely to support the invaders or the ones being invaded?

Yes. The already silly topic has been rendered totally obsolete in the last month. Our biggest adversary (biggest since WW2) is now a White country (Russia).

But even before Ukraine the thread was silly.

The survey doesnt even conclude what OP says it does. The survey shows that the minority of American Whites who have racists attitudes towards other Americans also tend to wanna bomb other countries ( and since the only countries that America had issues with at the time of the survey had brown skinned populations brown was the only choice then- either bomb brown folks, or dont bomb any one). The survey did not show that ALL American Whites somehow (consciously or not) pick and choose, and decide that "we should go to war with country A because its people are brown, but not with country B because its people are White".

The only way you scientifically test the theory is to eliminate all variables, and construct two "test countries". A brown skinned Iraq, and a White Iraq say. And then have the US have the exact same foreign policy issues with the two Iraqs. And then see how many voters want to go to war with the White Iraq and how many with the brown skinned Iraq- to see if there is a difference in the amount of aggression White voters are eager for to see if there is a racial bias.

The US gets into scraps with other countries for such hugely different reasons that there are too many variables to test.

We bombed more White countries in Europe in the Nineties, than we did brown skinned countries at that time. And ironically we did so in order to stop White people from committing genocide against other White people (former Yugoslavia in the Nineties). So ...does that mean that during the Nineties Americans were racist against White people? Or does it mean that we were racist in favor of White people?

Does invading Afganistan in the 2000s mean we were racist against brown people? Or does it just mean that we were angry that 9-11 was launched from that country? And when Biden suddenly pulled us out of Afganistan last year- did that mean we suddenly loved Brown people? Or that we hated brown folks enough to abandon them? Or does it mean that we are just sick of being in a quagmire?

If say Finland were to host a terrorist who did a 9-11 on the US would American voters be less angry at Finland because its a White country than they were at Afganistan? Since no European country has done anything like that to us recently we dont have a test case to compare to Afganistan.

Well since Russia is invading Ukraine now, they should do this study again, and see if people have the same opinion, since Russia is very white looking. Or ask these people how they felt about bombing nazis in WWII since they were also white.

Russia is an existential threat to the Free World.

Way beyond racist or racial considerations.

That's right.....

During the medieval period, there was almost always no "racial" cause for all the wars of conquest and plunder which occurred then.

Race wasn't behind all the crazy punishments (e.g., the rack, drawing and quartering, running on the wheel) which occurred, especially, in Europe around the time of the transition between the Medieval and the Modern.

And don't forget that religion, not race, was behind all the crazy wars and witch burnings which occurred during the Reformation and a century or so afterwards.

I think it's true that the worst evil in America had a lot to do with racism - but it's not necessarily true elsewhere in the world.