[flagged]
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
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"
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
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.
Both "genocide" and "continuing a genocide" suggest intent that we don't have evidence to support.
From all we can tell, his intent was to trade and to preach.
By his own documents Colombus was a contractor for the Spanish Crown, there to plant a flag as widely as possible:
Columbus was to become viceroy and governor-general of any islands and mainland he might discover, the appointment to be hereditary in perpetuity; and, in exchange, the Crown would take 90% of all income from the territories under his jurisdiction.
Additionally to promote the Catholic faith and create a religious alliance with the Far East directed against Islam.
Columbus was also very much not a singular actor leading the adventure:
Wherever they went, the conquistadores were constrained by a far-reaching network of controls administered with varying degrees of success by the Crown and the Church.
Although they were always in conflict with that bureaucracy, they could not ignore it.
When Columbus went ashore on the morning of Friday 12 October 1492 he had with him four individuals who embodied these forces in tension.
On the one hand he had the brothers Martín Alonso and Vicente Yáñez Pinzón, captains of the Pinta and the Niña, archetypal adventurers, fractious and disobedient, always on the lookout for private gain.
On the other, he had two Crown officials, the secretary of the expedition, Rodrigo de Escobedo, and the accountant, Rodrigo Sánchez de Segovia.
The journal, even though largely filtered through Bartolomé de las Casas is still largely a PR piece at odds with the actions of the conquistadores, they viewed the natives as very much less than European Catholics and took possession of primitives rather than established trade with equals.
It is also accepted that even if he did not intend to wipe out the Taino, he bore responsibility. His policies affected their demise beyond disease alone. It is true we will never know whether disease alone would have killed them off but that is exactly because we know that it did not. We can only speculate on what would have happened if intentional forms of violence were not in play.
It is odd to say that it is non-genocidal to kill off a population from indifference and greed. There is no ambiguity in the record that the Taino were destroyed due to policies Columbus initiated. One might kill a family while they are sleeping by setting their house on fire. They can then claim, I only wanted to destroy the house or, I only wanted to kill the father. They might justify doing so for commercial reasons, rather than a desire to make families dead. They may claim not to be a family killer. I do not see this as making the actions forgiveable or better. Likewise, exterminating a race through actions, even if one is indifferent to the outcome resulting in extermination, may not be a lawyer's version of genocide but I would say it is equally unforgiveable.