Why do only Europeans and East Asians develop ethno states?

[Kess]

There are no ethno states, you're confusing homogenous populations with the term 'ethno-state' which implies policies based upon racial preservation.

+1

[Odelia]

Because Blacks, Indians and MENAs are divisive as fuck. That's why their countries are so corrupt and war-torn. Africans particularly have tribes or towns that have developed a small subculture, and yet they get emboldened enough to make that certain tribe or town a fucking "ethnicity" as time goes by. Jesus Christ man, y'all look the same and even speak the same language, albeit a different dialect! Why make yourselves a new ethnic group!? They just want to divide and create conflicts like their nonstop civil wars! That's why SSA Africa is a violent, corrupt hellhole!

SSA has the same people fighting against the same people, who happen to be 40 mi away. That's like Berlinians fighting Munichians, or people from Rome fighting those in Venice. But we are civilized enough to know that we are the same peoples and share a heritage! To me, all Indians are of the same ethnicity, as are Ugandans, Nigerians, Liberians, Pakistanis, etc. There's no need to create an ethnicity within a fucking ethnicity!

I'll make a distinction: Tibetans are a different case though. They're not genetically Chinese despite being occupied by the Chinese, as are the Iranic speaking Tajiks of China, and the Turkic Uyghurs. Also not genetically and ethnically Chinese. So there are exceptions here...