International law defines genocide in terms of violence committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” yet this approach fails to acknowledge the full impacts of cultural destruction. There is insufficient international discussion of “cultural genocide,” which is a particular threat to the world's indigenous minorities. Despite the recent adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which acknowledges the rights to culture, diversity, and self-determination, claims of cultural genocide are often derided, and their indicators dismissed as benign effects of modernity and indigenous cultural diffusion. This article considers the destruction of indigenous cultures and the forced assimilation of indigenous peoples through the analytical lens of genocide. Two case studies—the federally unrecognized Winnemem Wintu tribe in northern California and the Inuit of northern Canada—are highlighted as illustrative examples of groups facing these challenges. Ultimately, this article seeks to prompt serious discussion of cultural rights violations, which often do not involve direct physical killing or violence, and consideration of the concept “cultural genocide” as a tool for human rights promotion and protection.
It would be the Bloom of the automobiles.
Answer:
D) The government gets it's authority from the people
Explanation: The preamble begins <em>"We the People"</em>, because it is stating the importance of the people in the United States government. The whole point of the American Revolution is the goal of creating a government that works by the "consent of the governed" and that gives power to the people.
Of course, this would not be stating that the United States is on its own, they make plenty of allies during the Revolution, and the Founding Fathers would never be a replacement for the king, since they are fighting against the idea of a Monarchy.
