> You are deliberately asserting a falsehood. Again. Deliberate elimination
of a people's entire cultural
> heritage is not at all the same thing as natural social change.
So there are peoples in the world who have experienced "social change" -- horrible euphemism that -- without the intervention of state or capital? Remarkable. Where and when?
>The latter of course usually involves
> incorporation and adaption of pre-existing knowledge and social customs.
Which is quite a different
> matter from simply trashing them without leaving a trace.
Remarkably stupid comments. So living human beings don't even amount to a "trace"? This statement is so extreme that it could only even _possibly_ be construed as true in regard to Tasmania and a few other regions of south-eastern Australia. I'm sure the Yolgnu, the Pitjantjatjara, or many other groups would be interested to learn that this has happened to _them_.
> > 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,
>
> But then you are intent on deliberately mis-representing the UN
definition, which you know is not nearly so broad as you make it out to be.
> So your statement is meaningless. Oh what a twisted web we weave...
I know no such thing. As usual, personal abuse fills the gap when people diagree with you and you have nothing else to say.
> Both definitions of genocide are about purposeful destruction of
particular groups, by whatever means.
And this, in the case of the Stolen Generations, could be achieved by stealing "half caste" children? You don't seem to have much faith in the resilience of the families and the individual human beings concerned. I'm glad I know otherwise.
> Neither definition implies that an
> absence of mass murder implies an absence of genocidal intent.
>
> Genocide is not about means, it is about intention.
I believe that intent to murder is an integral part of what most people understand by the word genocide. There was absolutely no intent to murder the Stolen Generations.
> It is only you that pretends otherwise
> or pretends that more sensible and acceptable definitions mean something
other than what they clearly say.
I disagree.
> But I think the dictionary definition will survive your lone campaign to
talk the concept of genocide out of existence.
If you really believe that the "dictionary definition" is the same as the UN definition, I feel sorry for you. All the dictionaries I've looked at talk about "race", which is a much steeper category than "culture" and such definitions would therefore be restricted to the Nazi Holocaust and a few other cases. And as I say, I don't think common usage _is_ that narrow. It's just narrower than the UN definition.