Michael, my apology, if out of frustration, I blurted something that was unpleasant.
If you know the politics behind the dilution of the definition of "genocide" proposed by Lemkin, you would understand my point of view and my spirited dealing of the subject.
America and Canada were the country that led in the omission of cultural destruction as a form of genocide because of their internal histories of destroying the cultures of their own native peoples.
Indigenous peoples in my country resort to the term genocide, even though it is their cultures that have been reduced to nothing, as a shield and precautionary measure. Imagine if dislocation of a group is considered genocide from the start, the subsequent physicalization of its extinction through mass killing can be prevented. An inclusive genocide is the only thing they have to make their experience both powerful and pitiful.
Michael- it's been gratifying to see that so many other contributors to discussion on Theory in Anthropology have become frustrated by the combative, self-righteous and dogmatic style of one of the contributors who comports themself wih poor manners. A shame, because their passion and commitment has nonetheless helped stimulate an interesting discussion.
BTW-Can you suggest for me some sources about the Bushmen for a course on the plight of indigenous peoples (I'm a South Asianist, so am less familiar with this literature)?
thanks, all the best, Piers (University of Canterbury)