I’d agree with Rythmdvl re the carving up of the area into arbitrary countries without regard for racial hatred (probably because to whites, black is black, like a lot of whites don’t see differences between chinese and other asian races (which really annoys those people, especially the racist ones.))
Another problem, the largest imho, is that these areas were given a government, as in, the strongest potential leader was given a lot of guns and the ‘authority’ to use them.
Europe had a higher (once again, imho) technological level before the governments we have now came into place, allowing more mixing of blood. The English might have a snob thing against the French and vice versa, but rarely were there racially motivated blood feuds… in fact most royalty in both countries is probably half and half. Makes it hard to promote racial hatred.
This didn’t happen in Africa (much) before the semi modernization. If a warring tribe was on the other side of a mountain range battles would be rare (or rarely taken all the way to either side’s actual living areas). Allow much faster transportation and you allow these battles to be continued where they would have been impossible before. (Hard to have all-out war when you need to work 10 months of the year in a harsh environment just to break even.)
So, allowing an area with strong clan/race ties and many blood feuds access to weapons of mass destruction is farily obviously a bad thing.
I don’t think ‘we’ are any more inherently able to handle war, or means of war, but the governments changed as our weapons changed (guns, crossbows, etc, helped weaken the monarchy) such that our political situation has been developed to deal with these issues.
To take a development from today, like ‘unbreakable’ public-key encryption and drop it in the 1940s would have seriously changed the political climate and perhaps destabilized the system. But to have encryption grow steadily stronger, and more useful, allows government to adjust slowly.
Similarly, giving a caveman a gun would destabilize his system. He could kill the current clan leader (or hold his power against any attackers) and provide for a much larger number of subjects than with period weapons. But the social structure of the day wouldn’t have been developed to support the large numbers of people in such close proximity, nor would there be farming technology to sustain them after the animals were hunted out.
If a society doesn’t develop along with its technology, I would say that social unstability is not just understandable, but likely.
I’ll agree with Sandyr that ‘we’ help white people more than brown or black people, but I suggest that along with some latent racist feelings (especially in the US, where slavery was more prevalent) there is just the issue that people help their own. If more people (in power) were from Africa, especially the warring parts, we’d probably have stepped in. Many powerful citizens have ties to Yugoslavia, so it’s where they’ll direct their attention. Otherwise, it’s easier for people to ‘leave well enough alone’.