One of the foundations of this blog is the concept that immigration of incompatible races and cultures leads to social disruption and ultimately - potentially - large-scale ethnic conflict. This in turn rests on the almost unquestioned premise that people prefer to be among their own kind. The extensive research by Putnam and many others support this. Few on this blog would even question it.
But I do have a question: The thought crossed my mind that the most "ethnic" conflicts seem to have occurred between peoples who were in fact extremely close linguistically and racially. Even in recent times we've seen this in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and the Ukrainian/Polish massacres after WW II. Note that here I'm excluding wars between states, as these reflect strategic objectives, rather than the more improvisational inter-ethnic strife.
Now I realise that religion plays its usual ugly role in the cases I've mentioned. But not in all cases. And in the American Civil War there was virtually no religious or racial component, yet white 'Christians' slaughtered one another mercilessly.
One reason I suppose is that you can't really 'hate' someone you don't know. Still, it is a question, isn't it?
This is just a late night random thought. I'm sure on reflection we'll come to a satisfactory conclusion. Else I'll have to shut down the blog, and save Google the trouble!