[gassius]

I guess one can argue that, in North America, by the hands of anglo saxon protestant pilgrims, were some mass killing of native population over the course of 4 centuries (although calling it Genocide is a naive simplicity IMO). But this was not the case for Spanish conquered America and much less for Columbus 4 trips. The only thing you are showing saying that Columbus was continuing some general genocidal douchebaggery in 1504, with a small crew and non functional ships to his command is that you are indoctrinated. I would recommend to ask yourselfe who did this indoctrination and what is their agenda.

Is funny, because that kind on unscientific unrational thinking was the main handicap the native population of America had against the Europeans migrants and the moral of the story in question is precisely that the power of knowledge and rational thinking can help you survirve some very long odds stacked against you

[notahacker]

the main handicap the native population had was vulnerability to diseases, but Columbus' habit of using them as slaves and cruelty sufficient for even the Spanish Crown to act against him was also a factor in the majority of the Taino being dead within a generation of him discovering them.

Ironic that someone in denial of the well established historical facts of the conquistadors and insistent that only "Anglo Saxon Protestants" did any harm in the Americas is lecturing about "indoctrination" and the "power of knowledge"

[gassius]

Diseases contagions between isolated populations is not an intentional act of agression from a bad invasor that wants to kill all the native population. There was also transmission of new diseases from native american populations to europeans without those crippling effects you might suggest are the main cause of the conquest of America.

The well established historical facts you mention are neither well established more less facts. For example, the Bodadilla report is argued in some circles to be just part of political bickering, which of course, is totally normal in the context, as it is the fact that Columbus itself has marginal control and presence over little territory for a very short period of time. To call it genocidal is still, inequivocally, for much that you dont like it, indoctrination

An unironicall one

[notahacker]

To call Spanish treatment of native Americans 'genocidal' simply echoes the opinion of Raphael Lemkin, the guy who literally defined the term. I'm not sure your assertion that there was no mass killing in Spanish-conquered America (presumably the writings of the conquistadors and their contemporaries are part of the "indoctrination"...) is more intellectually respectable...

As for Columbus as an individual, there are certain circles that will argue that despite being the sort of bloke whose reaction to the natives' peaceful inclinations and ignorance of swords was "with fifty men we could subjugate them and make them do whatever they want", who insisted on making good on that by deporting some of then to Spain even when explicitly asked not to and presaging the encomienda system with demands to find gold in greater quantities than the locals actually knew about, Columbus was a nice man who just wanted to make friends and religious converts who was unfairly maligned by his compatriots, just as there are certain circles that argue that Auschwitz was merely a temporary internment camp. And I've already acknowledged the unintentional role of diseases which helped Columbus and his compatriots depopulate territories with far more efficiency than the Final Solution, but it's more than a little difficult to insist that the forced labour and punishments and roundup of nine and ten year old girls to be used as sex slaves didn't play any role. The best thing that could be said for Columbus is that some of his compatriots were likely a lot worse.