“The Conversation” tells us why American racism makes wars…

I found this scatterbrained “study” over at The Conversation which leads with the headline, “Racial bias makes white Americans more likely to support wars in nonwhite foreign countries – new study.”

My initial response was, “OK, but which countries that are ‘white’ are embroiled in wars anyhow? Most ongoing wars and conflicts with America happen to originate in nonwhite countries; maybe that is a quirky fact The Conversation should study first.

If Wikipedia can’t be trusted to nudge a leftist POV, who can? In that spirit, let’s take a look at their summary of global conflicts and geographical origins.  For the sake of critical thinking, one must begin by examining the purported boundaries of said “study” which is making the claim since claims tend to be painted by ideology and politics posing as analysis and science.

ongoing global conflicts wiki 6.17 scaled

I doubt Americans would be hard-pressed to even find a “war” that is taking place in a “white” country.  Attempts to triangulate their specific opinion about foreign military action by ethnicity is skewed by the data set’s disproportionate nature.

The pseudo think-tank exposè begins.

The effects of American racial bias and anti-Asian sentiment do not end at the nation’s borders. The racial attitudes of white people also influence their support for American military intervention abroad, according to our working paper on U.S. foreign policy and racism.

White Americans who hold racist beliefs are significantly more likely to endorse aggressive military interventions over diplomacy or economic strategies in foreign countries at odds with the United States, if the residents of those countries are perceived as nonwhite.

This is particularly true when it comes to China.

Agenda showing much?

One of the most prevalent gimmicks the supercilious Left uses to adorn their opinions in reputability and unquestionable academic validity is to cite surveys and statistics showing that which good ol’ no-shit common sense tells the rest of us without the guidance of ivory-towered dolts (who aren’t that spectacularly bright).

As in:

Conservative white Americans tend to hold more racist views (as measured by the Leftist Academic paradigm) and as their views skew to one extreme so does their tendency toward favoring strong American military action.

Chew on that.  How many “studies” do we need in order to affirm this feat of intellect? The mathematical hopscotch creates a phony architecture of factuality. It’s like saying “we reviewed a study and can conclude that, in fact, 1 plus 1 equals 2.”

To analyze how racial attitudes affect support for U.S. military action abroad, we examined 30 years of public opinion data collected by one of the country’s longest-running national public opinion surveys, the American National Election Study. Our analysis focused on answers by white Americans from 1986 to 2016.

Specifically, we examined their responses to the “racial resentment” scale. Social scientists use this meticulously tested set of questions to assess anti-Black prejudice in the post-civil rights era. In recent decades, white Americans have become less willing to express explicitly racist views, such as opposing interracial marriage or supporting segregation. But they may still harbor bigoted perceptions, doubting Black Americans’ work ethic or commitment to self-reliance, for example.

The racial resentment scale is designed to capture this kind of discriminatory anti-Black views.

So what exactly is the control here?
Racial bias?
Racial resentment?
Racism?
How many ways can they deconstruct this concept and blend it into one unholy broad-stroked trait they can splash across a group to make an ulterior point?

Courtesy of the study, we’ve determined that people hold nuanced views regarding race (of course, the implication being that only white people are capable of such evil thoughts). In fact, nonwhites, beyond reproach, are the sole victims in the Identitarian charade.

Social scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that white people who hold such views are also likely to hold negative views of other nonwhite U.S. populations, including Latinos, immigrants, Muslim Americans and Asian Americans.

Based on responses to the racial resentment scale in the most recent American National Election Studies – administered in 2012 and 2016 to about 3,000 non-Hispanic white respondents each – we found that racist attitudes are correlated with and meaningfully influence white Americans’ support for U.S. military interventions in other countries.

“Social scientists” is a dubious introduction to any passage that involves you trying to convey studious objectivity.

Check out this ambiguous gobbledygook.

For example, people with racist attitudes favored more aggressive action against Iran. Thirty-five percent would support bombing Iranian suspected nuclear development sites, compared with 15% of whites with less racist attitudes and 31% of white Americans overall.

Three categories are introduced with their respective approval share of bombing the Iranian sites. Are they mutually exclusive or will The Conversation let that specificity slide by in order to lull lazy readers into enforced anti-white assumptions?

  • People with racist attitudes (35%)
  • Whites with less racist attitudes (15%)
  • White Americans overall (31%)

I presume people with racist attitudes encompasses people of all colors, and furthermore, this group supports bombing more than the others which is not a stretch of the imagination.  Extreme conservatism is a strong opinion which will set off sensitive racism measuring devices by proxy;  extreme conservatives support military intervention to strengthen American security.  Surprise.  Similarly, “less” racist attitudes are a strong opinion as well which will easily trigger the sensitive racial devices by proxy;  such an extreme liberal mindset is averse to foreign military intervention.

The Conversation’s brain-trust has concocted a study which measures correlations, at best.

And in a climactic crescendo of interpretive cognitive dance, the article touches on our latest international foe.

Anti-China views (to be conflated with racism, of course).

Racial resentment seemed especially influential in white American views of China – which has become an economic and political competitor to the U.S. over the last decade.

In 2012, of the 3,196 white Americans surveyed in the American National Election Study, 28% believed that China posed a “major” military threat to the U.S., 53% saw China as a “minor” threat and 19% did not see China as a threat. Racially resentful whites were 36 percentage points more likely to see China as a major threat than other white respondents, according to our analysis.

In 2016, 3,505 white Americans answered the same survey questions about China. Forty-five percent saw China as a “major” threat to the U.S. and 43% saw it as a “minor threat”; only 11% of whites believed that China presented no threat to the U.S.

Again, racial attitudes strongly shaped these perceptions. Our analysis found that whites with racist attitude were 20 percentage points more likely to consider China a major threat in 2016 than other whites.

While at first glance this might suggest that racial attitudes were less of a factor in 2016 than 2012, the lower percentage reflects the fact that a much higher percentage of Americans viewed China as a threat in 2016 than 2012.

“Competitor” seems a tad illusory if we’re talking the Department of International Honor. China’s cultural practices and ruling model is hardly conducive to the tradition of healthy competition. Did the research complex at The Conversation consider factoring for that unspoken variable that might play an equally important role in American disdain for China: Communism. I doubt it. It’s more convenient to blame racism when the alternative–intolerance of political ideology–is less scintillating to the Left’s narrative.

But all that saber-rattling in the South China Sea, and years of heated presidential rhetoric under Trump, have domestic implications. Studies suggest that when politicians describe the relationship between the U.S. and China as a “great power competition,” it stokes anti-Asian beliefs among white Americans.

These anti-Asian beliefs, in turn, make white Americans more likely to see China as a major threat, according to our research – one potentially worthy going to war over. We document a vicious cycle of racial animosity with potentially global consequences.

So are we expected to burrow our heads in the sand and pretend Communist China is our special diversity friend of gooey platitudes and mushy goodfeels? I wonder if The Conversation is going to have a conversation about Chinese opinions of Americans and any “resentment” they may harbor?

The Conversation’s “research” comes in a fortune cookie, apparently.

 


Archive

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments