It might surprise you but while the English settlers might easily be called chauvinists, calling all of them and their institutions racists or racist is an abuse of the language.

It is clear that the English settlers considered the Amerinds backwards and primitive and considered themselves much more evolved and edified than their new neighbors, but racist is not, to my mind, an accurate description of their attitude.

Between 1620-1674 the New England colonies expanded by purchase from the survivors of a plague that had greatly depopulated the tribes in Eastern New England between 1610-17. The general courts of the New England colonies usually adopted an in loco parentis posture towards their Eastern Algonquin neighbors which aimed to avoid conflicts between the settlers and the indigenous people caused by sharp dealings and misunderstandings.

There were no forced conversions and the only legitimate slaves were those made slaves under English common law; that is to say persons who voluntarily sold themselves into slavery and lawful captives taken in just wars. The literature and the law in these colonies suggest that the term slave and indentured servant were almost synonymous as the same laws applied to both. It does appear that a slave was an indentured servant for life.

See particularly paragraphs 85-93 of The Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html#ms

See also: History of New England by John Gorham Palfrey Vol. 1 & 2.

With respect to the British after 1704, they generally adopted the New England policy with respect to the Amerinds.

See: The Crucible of War by Fred Anderson, which often addresses British colonial policy between 1714-65.

After 1713, when Britain obtained the license (the Asciento) to sell African slaves to Spanish colonies, the policy with respect to African slaves dramatically changed.