That's... not really what I was looking for. You've selected one source (not an academic paper, but a summary page) that draws a single conclusion and cites other sources. You've listed the other sources without reading them (I'm assuming), or even having access to their abstracts. This is bad science and something I would expect from a high school freshman when learning how to write papers and vet unreliable sources.
Here, I'll do it for you and then we can look at what we have:
Keeler et al. (1970): "Adult wild red foxes brought into captivity have even broken off their canine teeth in an attempt to escape, and one wild fox has been reported to have torn at the wooden door of his cage in a frenzy until he dropped dead from exhaustion" So, based on this the variables were not controlled. The foxes have red hair, but they were also brought into captivity, not a first generation that is genetically identical bred in captivity. I shouldn't have to point out how many factors that leaves in that could explain the behavior other than hair coloration. In fact, I think the summary didn't include this 1970 paper in the "color" section for that reason, but your lack of reading comprehension failed to see that and so you included it in your sources.
"Links between coat color and temperament have been found in species as diverse as cats, dogs, foxes, mink, rats, deermice, and fallow deer (e.g. Hemmer 1990, Keeler and and Moore 1961, Trut 1999, Trapezov 1997)." Without links or access to these papers, or where they are published, it's impossible to verify these claims or peer at the validity of them. There's no bibliography with a complete list of these citations, so it's impossible to tell. So I'm guessing that you took it all on the word of the person who wrote this summary. Bad science.
I mean... that's all that I'm left with. These papers might draw some sort of conclusion and I'll have to look at that. But if this single link, with incomplete citations, is the only legitimate source you're basing all of your assumptions on... I mean it's just embarrassing.
Let me tell you what's wrong with your reasoning on a fundamental level. Forget on a scientific one, because I'm going to guess you're illiterate in that regard. These papers, assuming they are legitimate, are comparing how certain animals with darker pigmentation become less aggressive as they become domesticated, and this is sometimes correlated with a change in their pigmentation. I say sometimes because we have to think of all the other situations where this hasn't happened, such as with domesticated animals that have retained their dark pigmentation while being domesticated. Another issue is, you have an incredibly large animal kingdom full of incredibly aggressive animals that are white or tanned colored.... or animals with dark skin that are incredibly docile. I mean just look at the polar bear and a black bear...
So, is it scientifically interesting that some of this pigmentation changes with certain animals as they become less aggressive? Certainly! But it's bad science to then draw a connection between the two and claim causation. Because let's be honest, while you were "just asking questions here, heh", you were certainly begging the question, and it was definitely loaded with its bias. Look at you insistence at finding a specific answer (that it is connected) to your question that fits your already established narrative? Why ask the question in the first place then?
Because you're full of shit. That's why. And you know what? I bet in just a few days you'll be posting in more racially charged discussions, pandering your high school level understanding of science and some sort of race realism, and you'll feel pretty clever. Next time I would be better prepared with citations and what not, I'm sure you can find some copy-pasta on white supremacist forums that link to academic papers that tenuously link certain negative features to the darker "races". Up your game dude.