Indeed. In most historical records Germany committed the very first recognized and recorded genocide in the 20th century- the 1904 genocides in their southwest African colonies (present day Namibia). There is some debate there as the United States engaged in the slaughter of native tribes which many call a genocide but is qualified differently by different sources. That said- the most prominent and clear genocide of natives was ongoing from the 19th century “Indian Wars” and while there was armed conflict and various attempts at cultural and other annihilation of natives in the 20th century- by then most US actions could be seen as armed conflict or open warfare against those remaining tribes that still resisted U.S. occupation and subjugation. So as far as STARTING genocides- Germany currently is the first to do so in the 20th century by most historical accounts- of course in strict terms genocide applies at a tribal level, so it is again debatable that other entities engaged in “new”
genocides where the extermination of a specific tribal group was carried out- but there are issues with this such as intent and circumstance. That is to say, wiping out an entire ethnic group or tribe does not technically constitute genocide- for it to meet that criteria there must be a deliberate intent to wipe out the group. In other words, if Mars and Venus had citizens who went to war over resources and the Venutians fought until they were all dead, Mara technically didn’t commit genocide as their aim wasn’t to wipe out the Venutians but to acquire venutian resources and the deaths were collateral damage to that end. This is the primary consideration that applies to discussing genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas. At various places and times various individuals or governments DID seek to eradicate entire tribes or native populations, but at other times and other circumstances they may have completely or partially wiped out native groups but only as a secondary effect…
.. of some other goal. So take it with a grain of salt when discussing things like who committed genocide or when and so forth. The term “genocide” is often used or avoided because it has very strong and very negative context. Asides associations to horrific and well known events the primary reason the word is so strong is that it confers intent- that people weren’t just killed as part of some war or to achieve some goal but they were killed simply because someone else didn’t want THOSE PEOPLE to exist. It can be thought of as one of if not the highest of hate crimes- a crime with no purpose other than hatred, no benefit other than satisfying hate.
So whatever we want to call it when a large number of people are killed it isn’t generally a good thing. The terminology and semantics can be important but it is best to keep in mind that horror is horror by any name.
So whatever we want to call it when a large number of people are killed it isn’t generally a good thing. The terminology and semantics can be important but it is best to keep in mind that horror is horror by any name.