Racism scholarship long confined itself to biological black-white and antisemitic models

Evidence

It was not very long ago that Anglophone scholars of racism understood racism in terms of biology, and specifically in terms of the black–white binary. At the same time, other scholars, especially in continental Europe, understood racism in terms of antisemitism, especially in the recent biologized forms that Europe manifested in the 20th century. When it began to be clear that these two paradigms were failing to capture some contemporary experiences, such as anti-Asian cultural racism in Britain or anti-Arab cultural racism in France, some scholars began to move away from these paradigms. Even so, the pull of these biologistic models was so strong that even today many scholars of racism understand cultural racism in quasi-naturalistic terms, seeing culture as a ‘code’ for the biological racisms that they find more intelligible. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 583

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the two dominant scholarly paradigms (biological racism and antisemitism) that cultural-racism frameworks had to displace — central to locating this text within the field’s definitional debate.
• XREF: This genealogy of racism scholarship explains WHY the Islamophobia-vs-anti-Muslim-racism definitional dispute exists — connects to the reader’s comparison of Runnymede’s racialization turn vs Bleich’s neutral concept-formation. — connects to: Gramsci’s concepts transfer to racism despite his silence on it; Racism scholarship’s biologistic paradigms long excluded anti-Muslim discrimination as unclassifiable — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 588; Hostility to British Muslims predates modern biological racism and parallels antisemitism — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 167 (+4 more)

Related

• Racism scholarship’s biologistic paradigms long excluded anti-Muslim discrimination as unclassifiable (similarity 0.92)
• Gramsci’s concepts transfer to racism despite his silence on it (similarity 0.91)
• Nineteenth-century State racism reutilized older religious anti-Semitism for biological exclusion (similarity 0.85)
• Cultural-racism defenses are fallacious since all racism includes cultural components (similarity 0.84)
• Twentieth-century racism shifted from biology to culture (similarity 0.84)
• Biological racism and cultural differentialism are racism’s two registers, not separate systems (similarity 0.84)
• Cultural racism locks groups into immutable genealogies as biological racism did (similarity 0.84)
• Cultural racism locks groups into immutable genealogies just as biological race did. (similarity 0.84)
• Modern scientific racism displaced religion from the race concept. (similarity 0.84)
• Debates on antisemitism and Islamophobia have developed largely apart from race scholarship. (similarity 0.84)
• Racism shifts from discredited scientific claims to cultural arguments (similarity 0.84)
• Two decades of advocacy left the dominant race relations paradigm untouched (similarity 0.83)
• Racism has empirical grounding that Islamophobia still lacks (similarity 0.83)
• Anti-Muslim racism has shifted from bodies to culture while keeping an essentialist logic (similarity 0.83)
• Anti-Muslim and antisemitic persecution became racism when conversion was deemed biologically impossible. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Nineteenth-century State racism reutilized older religious anti-Semitism for biological exclusion #corroborates (0.85) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 105
• Analysis must treat racisms in their historical specificity, not as one universal form #expands (0.85) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 632