First, I find it interesting that you have chosen to criticize my methodology here. Specifically you have chosen to criticize the article I referenced (which you seem to have only read the first page of). Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, you have not provided any evidence for your position except for 1) a conversation you had with your nephew, and 2) your subjective reflections on your own childhood experiences. While these experiences may be relevant, they are far less scientific than the evidence I am presenting. Below are my responses to your criticisms.
"Here you are admitting that it is conveyed. Would race consciousness develop into racism without the social conditioning and implicit messages? I tend to think it wouldn't. At least not as often."
Based on this response, I'm guessing we need to review the definition of the word "implicit." The word means to express a message without directly stating it. In the context of cognitive psychology, the word refers to subtle messages conveyed and perceived unconsciously, which can influence cognition and therefore behavior. This definition should clarify the apparent problem you are taking issue with here, as my point is that racist attitudes and beliefs can be implicitly conveyed to children regardless of whether they are explicitly stated as well.
"Which is odd because the title and headline mention children as young as six months, but the article only mentions children of reading age who were exposed to implicit messages as a "first step""
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and suggest that perhaps you didn't notice that the article I provided is six pages long. If you read past the first page, you'll see where six month olds were tested. Also, the messages you are referring to are not implicit, they are explicit. Children in these studies were also tested prior to being spoken to about race.
"The people at the "Children's Research Lab at the University of Texas" who set up this study are woefully unaware of child psychology and drew worthless conclusions from a pathetically flawed study."
Any article will seem pathetically flawed if you read only one of six pages. I'm sure the well-educated researchers at the University of Texas would be curious to hear about how your methodology of talking to your nephew and recollecting your own experiences is superior to their empirical peer-reviewed study involving one-hundred families. To me it seems that until you provide more evidence for your own position, your criticism here is left somewhat neutered.
"I wonder what other "expert studies" helped you to draw this absolutist conclusion. "
I shouldn't have used the word "only" here, but I stand by the heart of my assertion. The work I use to justify my position is based in multicultural psychology. Janet Helms' model of White Racial Identity stipulates that one's relationship to one's race develops over time as a result of interaction with members of other races. The implicit beliefs one holds (based not only on explicit parental messages, but also implicit messages and societal conditioning) interact with the realities of one's lived experience of race and culture, producing a racial identity. This racial identity changes over time in concert with broader psychological changes and in response to critical events in a racial context.
If children are not exposed to their status as racial beings, they run the risk of falling into what D.W. Sue refers to as "ethnocentric monoculturalism," in which one denies the existence of racism yet nevertheless believes one's one racial and cultural worldview to be superior to others'. The danger here is that those who are not taught about racism would potentially be at a greater risk of acting racistly without awareness.
"Being racially aware and being racist are not the same thing."
I don't think I said anything like this. I agree with you on this point, but I don't see the relevance to the present discussion.