I suspect you'll find relatively few people who will use "genocide" to refer to the eradication of a culture without concurrent mass killing of the members of that culture.
I think the most notable genocides have involved murder, but that doesn't mean they all have. Look at what is happening to the Uyghur people in China; it appears to be more of an operation to destroy their culture and identity than to slaughter the people, at least at the moment.
> I think the most notable genocides have involved murder,
They usually do, but sometimes the overt murder stops while the genocide continues. If, and this is debatable, an endpoint could be drawn for the Native Ameeican Genocide in the US, its definitely long after outright killing based on being a Native not assimilated into the White society stopped being an organized practice.
This is also why the current definition by some western governments/parliaments of what's happening there as "genocide" has credibility issues in some eyes. If everybody suddenly agreed that "genocide" means "systematic attempt at cultural assimilation" then fine (would also mean that such "genocides" have been taking place all the time, since group identities disappear and reappear in an endless ebb and flow, maybe not so much in the modern world with all these nation borders, but much more commonly throughout the history), but just as this chain of comment reveals, 1. a more universally accepted term (also in e.g. the Canadian government's own report) would be "cultural genocide" and seldom would people use "genocide" to mean something without actual mass murdering 2. even the idea of "cultural genocide" is to some extent subject to debate.
If you investigate you will find that the CURRENT Canadian Government released a report saying the CURRENT treatment of indigenous in Canada is an ongoing genocide. Specifically for the eradication of culture you mentioned.
Matters very little what people like yourself who are far away from any impacts want to call it, it's still happening.
I don't think it's irrelevant. If the current population is on board with adopting a more equitable relationship with the other cultures bthat were here first, then that stands a better chance at succeeding.
Well just so you know the past populations were not necessarily more in love with the treatment of indigenous.
Here is an editorial from 1888 about the first Prime Minister of Canada and his starvation of indigenous, doesn't necessarily seem to me that everyone was on board with the treatment back in 1888.[1]
