I think parts of the press really likes to redefine terms. This isn't genocide, but that doesn't make any injustices less severe. It is however a mark of sensationalist and shady journalism.
Target of the critique should be Indonesia and the companies doing the extraction. These have a profit motive. To them the destruction of the territory of these people is a side effect.
I know the Guardian has had problems with this particular term recently, there is room for improvement.
Target of the critique should be Indonesia and the companies doing the extraction. These have a profit motive. To them the destruction of the territory of these people is a side effect.
I know the Guardian has had problems with this particular term recently, there is room for improvement.
reply