> to continue his general genocidal douchebaggery.
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.
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.