French Presidential Election

[Husar]

Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.

So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?
What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
Where does it end?

Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.

Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.
One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.[/QUOTE]

Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?

Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.

The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others.

Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.

You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?

The Serb assassin.

Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.

Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.

That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.

In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.

I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?

You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.

So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?

EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.

The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity. Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?

A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.

Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.