You commented, that my statement, "These efforts to eliminate the native peoples can only be described as genocide" - that - in your opinion - those terrible deeds were not actually genocide.
I imagine that you're possibly correct, that genocide could be graded, or we could say, not all attempted genocide succeeds, so its not genocide
But, what are the usual definitions of genocide?
A google search finds this definition by the Definitions from Oxford Languages
"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."
Another entry from that search is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
Quote: "Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"
The problem in both North America and Australia, is that the Native Peoples held Land Ttitle under a tribal system, maybe similar to the way Nations today define their ownership of land within claimed borders.
The invading British ( in both the above examples) claimed that there was no land ownership system in existence, therefore the could just walk in take the land over. Am I correct?
When the native peoples protested and attempted to resist the takeover the British solution was extermination, For your interest the map below indicates all the known (and attested) sites of massacres of aboriginal by white settlers in Australia, The article found at
has more information.