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.
Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.
Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.Iran
One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.North Korea
Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.Not if there only was one country.
The Serb assassin.Who was the latter? Russia?
Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.
In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group.
You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.
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.
A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.
Bookmarks