A few months ago, I was not sure that there were many people that shared my belief in the idea that race is a temporary and subjective construct.

After meeting with Vanessa, I realized that I was not alone. She completed a Masters degree at Concordia University on "A Post-colonial Analysis of the Discursive Making of BiDil and African American Heart Disease."

She and another person who had studied anthropology, confirmed that they had studied that race is a temporary construct, and has no basis in science.

Quote: Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.

Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many anthropologists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs.
End Quote
source: Nationmaster Encyclopedia > Race

Then in my readings on issues of racial discourse, I came across the topic of "Racialization" when browsing through an article on the Swedish media. According to this Russian website, the term dates back to 1930.

Of course to be expected (from my point of view), google search of 'racialise' quickly found articles from topics in Malaysia as race is a hot topic there.

Last but not least, I discovered this little gem, an exercise on racialisation from a UK site; the Open University.