It seems more historically accurate to say that racism has its roots in inter-tribal interactions: for instance the interactions in pre-modern Europe between Christians and {Jews, Gypsies, Moors}; the interactions in America between whites and {Native Americans, Blacks, newer white immigrants, nonwhite immigrants}; the interactions in Malaysia between Malays and {Chinese, Indians}; and so on. In each case, there is not merely a single “tribe” and its outsiders, but rather multiple “tribes” each with its own culture.
“Scary competitors” seems to be an unnecessary assumption, given cognitive biases. The coupling of fundamental attribution error + outgroup homogeneity bias + negativity bias + loads and loads of the availability heuristic, would lead people in groups to conclude that any negative (or merely confusing) experiences with other groups are representative of fundamental negative facts about those other groups.
It seems more historically accurate to say that racism has its roots in inter-tribal interactions: for instance the interactions in pre-modern Europe between Christians and {Jews, Gypsies, Moors}; the interactions in America between whites and {Native Americans, Blacks, newer white immigrants, nonwhite immigrants}; the interactions in Malaysia between Malays and {Chinese, Indians}; and so on. In each case, there is not merely a single “tribe” and its outsiders, but rather multiple “tribes” each with its own culture.
“Scary competitors” seems to be an unnecessary assumption, given cognitive biases. The coupling of fundamental attribution error + outgroup homogeneity bias + negativity bias + loads and loads of the availability heuristic, would lead people in groups to conclude that any negative (or merely confusing) experiences with other groups are representative of fundamental negative facts about those other groups.
I think “scary competitors” is relevant—a few strangers are exotic and interesting. Prejudice kicks in when a substantial group shows up.