Under the formal international law definition of genocide no, this sort of thing doesn’t quite fit. A lot of people have taken to identifying something that seeks to destroy a culture, without actually mass killing its people, to be a form of genocide. Sometimes called “cultural genocide.” But the international treaties on genocide, at least the ones that have sign off from all the "big powers’ were mostly written in response to atrocities of WW2, and were more concerned with mass extermination of people. But the UN doesn’t necessarily have sole right to define terminology. I would say that the situation described fits a definition of genocide that isn’t particularly unusual, but isn’t 100% as accepted as a genocide as say, the Holocaust or Japanese atrocities in Manchuria. I would say much beyond that would be better in a full dedicated thread.