Your statement about Tasmania is fairly ridiculous on several counts:
1) Lots of other groups in world history have been wiped out systematically.
2) Arguably the Tasmanians were not totally wiped out as some mixed-race folks survived (offspring, no doubt, of rapes by the invaders). An analogy can be made to the Picts in Scotland whose language was wiped out in the ninth century at a time, immediately after major Viking incursions, that Gaelic invaders killed most of the men and raped most of the women, thereby creating the modern Scottish. Similar outcomes have occurred with numerous American Indian tribes, some of whom did not even get this degree of survival but were totally wiped out (see _Ishi_).
3) Although catastrophic, the numbers involved were relatively small in comparison to the genocides attempted against the Jews and the Armenians in the modern era. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 06:07:22 EDT Dhlazare at aol.com wrote:
>
> You're being more than creative with the concept -- you're being highly
> imprecise. Fascism is first and foremost a theory of the state. It dispenses
> with democracy in favor of an emotional, non-rational relationship between a
> "volk" and a charismatic leader who not only feels their pain but knows their
> aspirations and personifies their "genius." It believes in turning the state
> into a militaristic order for conquest and suppression of the volk's enemies,
> both domestic and foreign. As Goebbels used to stress when the RAF was
> raining down bombs overhead, it believes that purification can only be
> achieved by going through the fire of warfare and destruction. None of this
> remotely applies to the political situation of the US during the worst of Jim
> Crow or, for that matter, South Africa under apartheid. If both societies
> were hateful, violent, and oppressive -- and they certainly were -- it only
> goes to show that violence and oppression can take place under bourgeois
> liberalism.
>
> By the way, the most successful effort at genocide occurred not in Europe
> under the Germans or in Armenia. Rather, it occurred in 19th-century
> Tasmania, the island off th south coast of Australia, where every last member
> of the aboriginal population was wiped out by white settlers. Hitler was
> nothing more than a second-rater in comparison. Yet I don't think that was
> fascism either.
> <
> Dan Lazare wrote:
> >
> >I still don't see how you can have fascism within the context of a
> bourgeois-
> >liberal republic.
>
> Well, I am being a little creative with the concept, but did Black
> people have the full panoply of bourgeois democratic rights, civil
> liberties ? Did they have the full protection of the Bill of Rights ?
> When a huge fraction of the population are systematically denied these
> do you just say, oh , but this is a liberal republic, so , this is not
> fascism ?
>
> Was South Africa with apartheid a liberal republic because it had a
> constitution and elections ? or was it a mixed republic and
> anti-republic ?
>
> >>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu