[31] Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky have argued that definitions of key terms, as well as the attention a society provides to a specific issue, such as genocide, is the product of mass media, as they mention in Manufacturing Consent: "A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients will be unworthy".

[33] Bradley Campbell has proposed a theory of genocide as a function of minority status, social segregation, low population size, and lack of visibility.

[34] In the latter part of the 20th century, the genocide of Indigenous peoples attracted more attention from the international community, including scholars and human rights organizations.

During this final stage, Stanton argues that individuals and government may "deny that these crimes meet the definition of genocide", "question whether intent to destroy a group can be proven", and "often blame what happened on the victims".

For instance, American historian David Stannard explained that European colonizers "purposefully and systematically dehumaniz[ed] the people they were exterminating".

[38] Further, South African sociologist Leo Kuper has described denial as a routine defense, referring to it as a consequence of the Genocide Convention.

He argues that denial has become more prevalent because genocide is considered "an international crime with potentially significant sanctions by way of punishment, claims for reparation, and restitution of territorial rights".

[44] American historian Ned Blackhawk said that nationalist historiographies have been forms of denial that erase the history of destruction of European colonial expansion.

[45] Some historians do not consider that genocide of Indigenous peoples took place in North America, including James Axtell, Robert Utley, William Rubinstein, Guenter Lewy and Gary Anderson, although some call the atrocities another name such as ethnic cleansing.

[46][47] Other scholars, including Elazar Barkan and Walter L. Hixson agree with the sentiment that those in the Americas deny the genocide of the regions' Indigenous populations.

"[50] A similar issue arose when Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, rejected a television project celebrating the anniversary, highlighted the proposal's use of the word "genocide".

[56] Canadian political scientist Adam Jones has said that the historical revisionism has been so thorough that in some cases, the Americas have been depicted as unpopulated before European colonization.

[71][72][73] The Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) received criticism upon its opening in 2014 because it did not use the term genocide to describe the history of colonialism in Canada.

[93] This position was reiterated on National Truth and Reconciliation Day in 2023, with prime minister Justin Trudeau stating that denialism was on the rise.after disputes regarding the conclusiveness of the evidence of Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries.

[97] Kimberly Murray, from the Office of the Independent Special Interlocutor, released a report in 2023 stating: “a core group of Canadians continue to defend the Indian Residential Schools System … some still deny that children suffered physical, sexual, psychological, cultural, and spiritual abuses, despite the TRC’s indisputable evidence to the contrary.

They believe Canada’s historical myth that the nation has treated Indigenous Peoples with benevolence and generosity is true.”[98] The report prompted Leah Gazan, an NDP Member of Parliament, to introduce Bill C-413 in 2024 that would ban residential school denialism.

[99][100] In 2022, the Canadian government announced that it would pay C$31.5 billion to reform the foster care system and compensate Indigenous families for its deficiencies.

[103][104] According to Nadia Rubaii, the mass atrocities in Latin America have been less visible internationally for three reasons:[105] In Argentina, the Conquest of the Desert had been interpreted in war terms, silencing the fact of Indigenous genocide.

[125] There are still numerous Australian historians who uphold the view that massacres and removal of Indigenous children was neither genocidal nor racist, but instead an action of state intervention.

[127][128] According to Hannah Baldry, "The Australian Government appears to have long suffered a form of 'denialism' that has consistently deprived the country's Aboriginal population of acknowledgment of the crimes perpetrated against their ancestors.