>> If you have a problem with the Geneva Convention, that's fine. It's not
>> sacrosanct. But the ball is in your court to develop a better definition.
>> It's not good to simply say "oh, this could be anything!" when in fact we
>> have a very clear interpretation of what it could be
>
> I have said that I think genocide has to involve actual systematic killing
> in addition to things like child-stealing, etc. Otherwise it is not an
> attempt to annihilate the people concerned.
It is comments like these that make me very, very nervous about your position. If you said: this is another way of attempting to exterminate a people, but it is not genocide, I would accept your point. We'd be talking about words. But that isn't what you are saying. You seem to imply that if you systematically removed children and indoctrinated them to the effect that they were not Aboriginal, then that's not an attempt to exterminate Aboriginal people. It's as if, in your view, a person could remain Aboriginal without having any awareness of the fact; or equally disturbing, as if the loss of linkage to Aboriginal tradition and society were small potatoes. Maybe I haven't understood what you are saying, so sorry if any of this sounds a little loopy.
Thiago