@sempaiscuba Yes, the absence of the literal word "racism" at the original question. More importantly, there was no "race" in the British Colonies in the 1660's, thus there was no "racism". Those terms came about after the historical period which the original question deals with. Simply because OP clicked a tag on History S.E. labeled "racism" cannot retroactively insert "racism" into a historical time frame where no "race" nor "racism" existed. Removing the "racism" tag would avoid confusion.

@sempaiscuba The same attempt to retroactively insert terms into the historical context of the question is performed at this answer: "In 1630, over three decades before the timeframe in question, the colony of Virginia ordered a white man" where there were absolutely no "white man" in existence anywhere in this world in 1630. That statement is patently false and historically inaccurate; there are no primary source documents which could point to any "white man" on this planet prior to 1681.

@sempaiscuba While you found the time to ask this user a question, perhaps you should do well to ask your colleague why their answer attempts to revise actual history by mentioning Aristotle (whom allegedly existed 2000 years before the 1660's). "In 1630, over three decades before the timeframe in question, the colony of Virginia ordered a white man" is blatantly historically incorrect. Address those glaring historically false parts of the answer.

@guest271314 The records were being created by white men. The fact that they didn't feel the need to use the term is hardly surprising. For them "white" and "male" was the default. Only people who were something other than that required further adjectives as descriptors. The primary source documents make that quite clear.

If it is necessary to record other people as "a Christian Moor" or "a black woman" (both of which were employed in English primary sources well before 1681), the idea of "a white man" is implied. The term stands on its own as a descriptor of appearances. For someone who has spent a lot of time researching those primary source records, to argue that there were absolutely no "white man" in existence anywhere in this world in 1630 seems rather fatuous if I'm honest.

@sempaiscuba "The records were being created by white men. For them "white" and "male" was the default." That is simply historically inaccurate. You cannot insert terms into the record that do not appear there, nor prove by the official record what you claim as to "implied". That violates the canons of statutory construction. You are attempting to revise actual history. There was no "white" person on this planet before 1681 that is an indisputable historical fact.

@sempaiscuba "The term stands on its own as a descriptor of appearances." Not sure what you mean by "appearances"? No person in recorded history has ever been born that is the colour "white". The term "White-woman" first appears in the British Colonial records in 1681 in Maryland. If you are going to insist that the term "white" was used in law to described any person prior to 1681 you need to cite the precise British Colonial records to substantiate that claim.

Actually, the term "white" was applied to a person's appearance appears much earlier than 1681. One very well-known example is in the writing of George Best (an officer on Martin Frobisher's 1576/77/78 expeditions).

@guest271314 To save time, I'll try to deal with the points you've raised here in order.

1 The question is about racism. The tag applied by the OP is Racism. The quote in the question is from The Shaping of Black America by Lerone Bennett, which is - in turn - about racism. The previous paragraph in that text even states explicitly "The race problem in America was a deliberate invention of men who systematically separated blacks and whites in order to make money". So, yes, racism.

2. Semaphore's answer simply points out that racism has a long history. He chose to take it back to Aristotle. I might have given even earlier examples, but given the influence of Aristotle on the development of later laws in Europe & European colonies that seems a reasonable choice.

3. I (and, I suspect most others) am quite prepared to accept the existence of Aristotle as an actual human-being on this planet. Not only do we have his writings but also works written about him by people who were (broadly) his contemporaries. In fact, I have more evidence of his existence as a person than I do of yours (or than you do of mine for that matter).

4. The term "Moor" as a descriptor of race was quite common in England from at least the 15th century. It was routinely used as a synonym for "black", "black moor", or "blackamoor" (with variant spellings). For examples, you might like to see:

4.2 John Moore of York. Also from the UK National Archives (again, with images of original documents).

4.3 Casper van Senden's effort to deport Black people from England in 1596. (To avoid misunderstandings, it's probably also worth reading Miranda Kaufmann's article in association with this one!).

4.4 Perhaps best of all, the Parish registers of St Botolph's without Aldgate. This was a particularly diverse parish in the late 16th century, and a number of mixed-race marriages are recorded. the original records can be viewed on Ancestry if you (or your local library) have a subscription.

4.4.1 If you don't have a subscription, or a local library, a number of news articles quoted extracts from the parish records of St Botolph's without Aldgate (and other London parishes) in the late 1500s a few years ago. This example was from the BBC, but I'm sure a quick Google search will provide you with plenty of others.

5. While the question does not ask whether the term "white man" was defined in law in the 1660s, it seems quite reasonable to ask whether "white" as a descriptor of race might have been used at that time. The works by George Best (for example) show that it was.

5.1 the term "white man" is, however, the accepted term in use today and, as such, the correct term to use to describe Hugh Davis of Virginia in an answer intended for a modern readership. The same standard is applied here on the EJI website, for example.