A term like genocide is often going to have subjective boundaries and meanings. How many, how much, what quality, what intent, what impact, what scope, what timeline, etc etc .
With that in mind, I would rarely if ever argue with someone about what “technically” qualifies as genocide or not. If you choose that word and I don’t, or vice versa, I don’t think it really matters as long as we’re both understanding of the facts that underlie what we’re describing. And, more importantly, arguing about whether an event meets the technical definitions of genocide detracts from more important conversations.
To me, it seems obvious that Native Americans/North Americans were subject to intentional genocide at the hands of the governments in the US and Canada (and probably other places, but I am less knowledgeable there), and that act of genocide never ended. For those of us not subject to this particular genocide it may feel like it’s over because its impact on us is minimal/invisible (a result of the success of the genocide thus far).
That said,
. . . there’s a huge challenge at the moment and intellectual . . . discrepancy (or maybe lack of self-reflection/understanding is a better way to put it) in our discussions/understanding about racial justice, racism, and how we talk about these things.
In the thread referenced in the OP, @IvoryTowerDenizen said:
I’m not asking you two to defend the other’s comments, but I just feel like these arguments all get messy. “It’s the intent of those trying to eradicate the targeted people that matters.” “for anyone who does this work intent doesn’t really matter, but rather impact.”
Just noting that none of this is quite as obvious as some folks seem to feel that it is.