Racism is a contested and its definition is widely challenged by historians and sociologists alike, as you will later see. At its most basic level, we can define racism is discrimination based on racial characteristic. However, this definition lacks the complexity that racism demands. Instead, I have chosen to follow Benjamin Isaac’s definition of racism: “An attitude towards individuals and groups of people which posits a direct and linear connection between physical and mental qualities. It therefore attributes to those individuals and groups of people collective traits, physical, mental, and moral, which are constant and unalterable by human will, because they are caused by hereditary factors.” I would add that, as George Fredrickson has suggested, racism expresses itself in “practices, institutions, and structures.” Thus, racism manifests through social and political relations. This definition is helpful because it removes the precise temporal traits that some scholars attribute to racism. More significant to this discussion are the terms racial formation and proto-racism. Omi and Winant define racial formation—or racialization-- as “a process...in which human bodies and social structures are represented and organized.” We can also call this the sedimentation of racial ideologies. Many historians who wish to examine non-modern concepts of race or racial formation attempt to fit pre-modern concepts into modern understanding of race, when in most cases racial formation is a more appropriate term because it highlights the significance of a process rather than a static concept. In other cases, proto-racism is more appropriate as well. …show more content…
Benjamin Isaac defines proto-racism as racism in a full sense but in an early and even developmental form, which precedes Darwin and more modern understanding of race. Proto-racism is still a theory based on biological differences that are sociocultural-imagined realities. By understanding purity of blood laws as proto-racism we reduce the risk of oversimplification or overstating their significance within the history of racism. I have chosen not to utilize “antisemitism” in this essay because, although it may be fitting, readers will undoubtable associate it with 19th and 20th century racism against Jews that do not provide us with a constructive discourse of Jewish persecution. As, Max S. Hering Torres has pointed out “raza” and purity of blood laws implied a “stained and tainted lineage,” but it did not represent a category of a global order of racial hierarchy. Historical Perspectives Race and racism are two of the most popular topics in history, sociology, and anthropology. This obsession with race stems from our desire to understand how and why is utilized throughout history. Much like other forms of discrimination, racial ideologies captivate us. This exploration will proceed based on the presumption that race and racism are worthy of historical analysis. Although this may seem obvious, some historians have questioned how pivotal the study of racism is to our understanding of societies, especially in comparison to other forms of persecutions, such as religious or ethnic. As historians, studying racial development is important because race and racism are significant and can help us understand the societies we study, not because of a moral imperative or because race is more significant than other forms of persecution. This study seeks to address issues of discrimination that blur the line between anti-religious