[geraldyo]

While true that all countries had conflicts, most (maybe all?) of the developed world was never pillaged to the extent Africa and South America were. Not to mention a lot of the conflicts between those nations happened "voluntarily" between the fighting countries.

Africa especially, the current country borders were designed based on the division of property between all the European countries invading the natives' lands. That meant several tribes and groups were divided/grouped together, leading to wars that hold to this day. If I'm not mistaken the Rwanda Massacre is the major example of that coming to fruit

[concordDance]

Nope. Check how Frenchness came about (there used to be many languages in the current French borders). Check all the various wars (Napoleonic Wars, Finnish War, WW2, much further back we have Mongol War...).

Germany didn't exist 200 years ago.

Welsh nearly went extinct.

Poland moved hundreds of miles.

The thing that differentiates those European countries from the African ones is mostly age. And even then its not always one-sided.

There's also countries like Vietnam or empires like India which got pillaged just as hard as South Africa or Rwanda.

Also, are you trying to make the point that multi-ethnic societies result in civil war? That goes pretty strongly against current public sentiment.