Hi Mike,
That is pretty much what I meant. I think "genocide" will always be one of those words that people use for effect, more frequently than it probably should be. I'm asserting what I believe to be the normal international _common_ usage (as opposed, e.g. to the UN's rather open and legalistic notion). If the annihilation of culture, as terrible as it is, is defined as genocide, then I think we tend towards a situation whereby the --- always traumatic --- transition from pre-modern to modern societies, everywhere, always included an element of "genocide".
BTW, although I accept that words change in usage over time, when Raphael Lemkin coined the word in 1944, he defined genocide as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." Which it seems to me is not nearly as widely applicable as the UN definition, and also strongly implies mass murder. Whereas, at least since the early 1850s, the ruling classes in Australia generally had a strong reason to keep as many indigenous people alive as possible --- the flow of immigrant labour was almost always less than what capital required and it was also "expensive".
regards,
Grant.