It resonates with me but more in the way of it being interesting to think about where the line should be drawn. Like is vodka traditional to Russia? Potatoes to Ireland? Tomato sauce to Italy or curry to India? Because I consider them trafitional even though none of the ingredients are native to the countries listed.
I feel like tradition is never isolated to itself. One culture influences another culture influences another. So like someone could argue curry isn’t traditional in India because of the use of American ingredients. And could argue Jamaican curry isn’t traditional because it came from Indian sugar cane workers. And Japanese curry isn’t authentic either because it was introduced to them through the British after their colonization of India.
Also I just wanna emphasize that I’m not trying to downplay what you said; I think it’s a super interesting question and one worth talking about!
Personally I think what is left after a colonial genocide could definitely be considered a new culture, but I feel like it depends on how the people within it identify. Like sticking with the topic of indigenous peoples, the loss of traditions and language is a big deal, but that doesn’t mean that the culture is different. Carrying on with whatever fidelity is possible seems like a fair way to cobsider yourself a continuation instead of a whole new deal.
Sorry if that’s incoherent lol I’m not running at 100% today. I like talking about semantics