weird, ill-informed Economist article. 'genocide' as an attempt to destroy a people *as a people* is well-established, forcible sterilization is well-attested and widespread as is cultural annihilation https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the-wrong-word-for-the-horrors-of-xinjiang

on top of this, of course, measures such as "imprisoning millions of people, stamping out their culture, destroying their buildings, excluding them from the rest of the country and sterilizing them" *are a well-attested step toward physical extermination*

But honestly *the things I have just listed* are enough to justify calling it an attempt at genocide by itself

'killing all the Indians' was never explicitly on the 19th century American agenda, driving them into reservations, destroying them as a people, taking their children away from them, and wiping out their language and religion was. We rightly recognize that as genocidal.

@TheEconomist any comment?