Specifically looking at the Smithsonian article, they don't even mention xenophobia until the last sentence.

What they're talking about is instinctive preference for other creatures which the baby identifies with, and in the research the article cites there isn't any direct correlation to race. They talk about food preference — something superficial. There was no research cited to indicate whether the behavior extends to racial distinction, so your using this research to back up your claim that "babies of about the same age as the ones shown in Obama's tweet already display instinctive xenophobia" is intellectually dishonest at best.

And I ignored the Independent article because they're known to be poor at in-depth reporting.

Alt-righters will occasionally shitpost stuff like this to derail any real discussion. I've seen dumps of dozens of misleading links to support points like the above. Forcing the thread to disprove each one is an effective method of hijacking the thread.

My fault -- you can find much better links if you search for 15 seconds instead of 5:

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-si...

Trash analysis from a throwaway account.

Independent.co.uk link discusses proposed evolutionary/biological origins of xenophobia, and specifically points at groupthink, not individual bias, as a possible explanation.

Smithsonian link describes a study where babies show a preference for non-racialized puppets who displayed similar food preferences. Nothing to do with race or bigotry.

Here's a better link:

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-si...

Points to lack of exposure to other races as a likely cause.

Far from babies being born racist.

Right. The reason my house is brown is: lack of exposure to blue paint.

No one is saying you can't convince babies, or anyone, not to be racist. Actually, if history proves anything, it's that you can convince anyone of anything if you get to them early enough.

But your claim seems to be that they're racist by default. I grew up in a poor ethnically homogenous country at a time when there was only one TV channel. I didn't meet or even see anyone of a different ethnicity until my early teens. Why didn't I have any negative feelings towards them despite my complete lack of exposure?

Yeah, I see this sentiment flowing around very often and I agree with you on this.

I prefer to think of it this way: The ability to rise above this type of thing is a part of what makes us human. Learning to not be bigot is something you have to do. You have to work at it always, it's not free.

Certainly.

The point is just that the statement is literally false. That doesn't mean it can't be poetically true.

The first article from 2004 has two anthropologists say they "believe" evolutionary psychology can explain exclusionary behavior, while the second has the line "While extrapolating this to mean that the babies are racist or bigoted is probably a step too far...it does raise interesting questions". I wish that's all I needed to firmly hold something as fact, it must feel nice.

But xenophobia is most certainly a spectrum of emotion, and that which occurs in babies can be taught quite easily out of them.

Once friendships occur, specifically, it tends to fade away pretty quickly.

So I'm not sure if baby-sourced studies like the one you show "prove" that "it's not true."

Not saying that the studies are wrong; just that we all have many biological traits that we overcome easily through nurture.

In-group out-group markers are flexible, but can most easily be based on physical characteristics, so it is maintained. The best chance to remove it is to counteract those markers with in-group markers pertaining to class, dress, language, and values.

EDITED for typos and clarity.

Instinctive xenophobia is different from indoctrinated bigotry.

>Perhaps it's popular because it's not true

Why would something being untrue make it popular?

Have you watched the news and any kind of social media lately?

That's not hate though.