Racism and Nationalism

I, like Isabel, question Anderson's attempt to disprove that racism derives from nationalism. Anderson claims that racist epithets do not "simply express ordinary political enmity," but rather "erase nation-ness by reducing the adversary to his biological physiognomy" (148, emphasis mine); he continues:

The fact of the matter is that nationalism thinks in terms of historical destinies, while racism dreams of eternal contaminations, transmitted from the origins of time through an endless sequence of loathsome copulations: outside history (149).

For Anderson racism's mode of imagining is irreconcilable with nationalism's: Nationalism imagines a community historically, linking its past, present, and future in a structure of anticipation; racism, on the other hand, imagines the degradation of a race as a perpetual, ahistorical threat. 

Yet I am unconvinced that we gain much critical purchase on racism by analytically sequestering it from nationalism. Furthermore, Anderson seems to place the biological outside the realm of the political (and vice-versa). I believe that Anderson, in order to make a somewhat polemical point, overlooks the issues at stake in his handling of the concepts of history, biology, politics, and nationalism. 

Without a theory of racism as biological and political, of biology as raced and historical, how can we examine fields where these categories intersect? For example, in 1992 the U.S. CDC designated 4 risk groups for AIDS, called the 4 H's: Hemophiliacs, Heroin addicts, Homosexuals, and Hatians. Here we see the juxtaposition of what have been considered, at one time or another, medical conditions, forms of social deviance, personality types, and a nationality. In practice we see the imbrication of all of the categories that Anderson would like keep separate in his theory.