>My take on what Grant was saying was that act of
>genocide should be reserved for the systematic,
>physical extermination of a people. Chattel slavery
>would usually be considered genocide otherwise under
>the definition you're giving above. It's not a
>question of Grant wishing to minimize the serious
>damage done to the Aboriginal people.
Well perhaps, although it is true Grant doesn't want to call it "genocide" and he admits this will require a re-definition of "genocide".
But I'm surprised by your assertion that chattel slavery would be considered genocide under Thiago's definition (which as I read it is merely the UN definition.) Chattel slavery *might* be part of a strategy to eliminate a distinct culture. But unless it is somehow the purpose of enslaving people, it wouldn't be genocide.
So I don't see how you could arrive at that conclusion. Please explain?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas