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.
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
According to the <em>role theory</em>, people, as members of society, <em>assume particular social roles and their day to day activities are defined by these roles</em>. While roles are comprised of duties, rights, and behaviors, they also come with expectations from other people.
<u>Role Expectations</u> include <u>qualities and actions, which the role performed has to meet</u>. For example, woman who performs role of a ‘mother’ is expected to be caring <em>(quality)</em> and dedicate her active time to parenting <em>(action)</em>.
The correct answer is C: the land has minimal capacity to feed the population
