Post #2417864
2026-01-28 16:40 UTC
@fulanigirl@mstdn.social Not trying to be a dick (and if you'd prefer I delete I absolutely will!) but I'd question the use of 'attempted' here?
I was under the impression there did not have to be 100% eradication of a people for the atrocities to be considered genocide; most genocides across Europe and Africa had survivors. But they still were very much that. A huge proportion of the First Nations were wiped out and cultural genocide alongside literal murder-genocide means very few survive, relatively, today. https://hmh.org/library/research/genocide-of-indigenous-peoples-guide/
Replies (1)
-
@fulanigirl@mstdn.social 2026-01-28 16:45
@noodlemaz@mstdn.games You don't need to delete. I taught International Criminal Law for over a decade. You are correct legally that genocide does not require the total erasure of a people to still be called genocide, However, that is not really relevant to the point I am making and I intentionally chose that phrasing for the reply guys who will say Native people are still here therefore it wasn't genocide. You know how your people are.