> Again, you are dishonestly making things up. I haven't expressed any value
> judgements, romantic or otherwise, about aboriginal culture.
That was me stooping to your level --- reading into what you've written.
> I do have contempt for dishonesty though and admit a
> weakness for honestly expressing that contempt.
And there you go again. You seem to be an expert on other peoples motives and dishonesty, at least in your own mind. How pompous and self-righteous you are.
> >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?
>
> Obviously there has been social change without outside intervention,
> otherwise capitalism and the political state would not have come into
> existence. Unless you believe these social institutions were imposed by
> aliens from another planet?
Were the European bourgeoisies, for example, of one mind with peasants when they ended serfdom/feudalism in Europe? Did the early modern "political state" (a tautology BTW) reflect the will of peasants and wage labourers? The answer of course is "no" in both cases, especially since nations/ethnicities --- in the modern senses of the words --- and democracy didn't exist and in many cases the different classes literally didn't even speak the same mother tongue.
> >Remarkably stupid comments. So living human beings don't even amount to a
> >"trace"?
>
> Individual human beings don't live forever. Deliberately preventing
> parents from passing their traditions and values to the next generation is
> genocide,
If the revolting policies responsible for the Stolen Generations had been simply about annihilating "traditions", those responsible would have targeted "full bloods". They never did. They targeted "half castes", under the appalling and ludicrous idea that people with European genes would be more receptive to western culture. You are conflating genocide with another form of racism.
> The Jews are not a "race", or genetically distinct group.
Debatable _and_ irrelevant. Like most people up until the late 20th century -- if not more recently -- the Nazis believed that race and culture were the same thing.
> So the Nazi
> holocaust doesn't fit into your new, even narrower, definition of
> "genocide".
As you know very well, my definition is about contemporary usage. _You_ raised the issue of dictionary definitions, every single one of which involves "race". It's not my definition at all.