>The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.

destruction of language or literature, banning of clothing or foods, rules against public congregation have all been ruled genocide by the UN.

saying cultural genocide isn't genocide is like saying oral rape isn't rape

>Why bother comparing them?

because "those who don't learn about history are doomed to repeat it" and comparing them is our moral obligation.

>All we can do is acknowledge it happened, stop it when it's going on, and try to prevent it from happening again.

comparing and contrasting is step one. you can't do any of that other stuff if the average person doesn't even really understand what "it" even is.

not gonna sugarcoat it, either i missed the point of your comment or it was a really dumb thing to say. i read it like saying, "what's the point in exercising and dieting? all we can do is try to be in the best shape we can and live a healthy life." i feel like you asked why we should do something and then listed the reasons we should do it.

not that it's much better but that's not exactly what usually happens.

it's usually more like "never again ... well, that doesn't count"

post-nazi genocides have always had some excuse: we're saving them by converting them to the true faith, it's not wiping a culture out if we only sterilize people, nobody knew that they needed water to continue farming.

saying oopsy would be like admitting guilt so countries don't do that. the canadian government doing it here is actually somewhat progressive, all things considered