[ifokiedoke]

While I understand this sentiment - especially since as you say, most (if not all) of today's accepted states and borders are the result of bloody, unfair conquest - I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. Interestingly, I've also found that many people (I'm being a bit hand-wavy here, I know) who are completely fine with dismissing indigenous land acknowledgements have plenty to say about Tibet re: China, or Crimea re: Russia, etc. Perhaps it's all realpolitik posturing, but if it has been I certainly haven't been able to tell.

Seems to me that so long as the peoples who "lost" in history are still around and able to generate sympathy, empathy, and understanding, it lands upon us to seriously think about whether or not we should continue the status quo and carry history into the present.

[paloaltokid]

> I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset.

I used to be perplexed by these responses on HN as well but they make a certain kind of sense. If you have really doubled down on science and evolution and take them to their logical extreme, Darwinism really does just reduce to "if I can eat you, I win."

It occurs to me that many posters on HN are very okay with this mindset because they are chasing big dreams in life. And if a few people get hurt while they're on their way to riches, so be it.

You see this sentiment all the time in various comment threads.

[jtr1]

It takes a pretty impoverished understanding of evolution to write off cooperation and symbiosis as strategies for passing on ones genes.

[paloaltokid]

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying those are the conclusions many folks on this forum seem to have drawn.

[waffle_ss]

It's not a dismissal to give agency to the opposite side by highlighting their own inter-tribal conflicts and warrior culture.

As for the bizarre strawman tangent, I have nothing to say about Tibet or Crimea, so ... ?

Let's be more empathetic, sure, but let's remain truthful. Seemingly innocuous, feel-good statements like some of these land statements are not leading down any kind of path of reconciliation but rather stoking further resentment and conflict as you've opened the floodgates to unlimited re-litigation of all past grievances.

[ifokiedoke]

I'm not entirely sure why you're being downvoted because I wouldn't consider your comment here that objectionable. And in fact you're right -- you did not say anything about Crimea/Tibet; that wasn't so much directed towards you in particular but an observation I was making about a lot of others I know who have said the same thing. It was a bit hand-wavy, and perhaps I should have left it out.

Thank being said, your original comment -- which is what I replied to -- was not so much about highlighting inter-tribal conflicts as it is now that you've edited it. I just want to point out that I really do not appreciate you editing your original comment then replying to me without acknowledging that you've done so, effectively trying to re-write history. It's extremely disingenuous and not at all in the spirit of HN.