Were the Indians really unaware of lunar eclipse? People living in the nature probably were quite familiar with the phenomenon, so they couldn't predict it, but were not surprised when happened. This sounds like a made-up story from the time of Enlightenment illustrating the deification of Knowledge.
Is not the phenom in itself, is the fact that someone can predict/call upon it that was surprising. The fact that they had already given esoteric meanings to the phenom previously is just the icing of the cake.
And I for one am grateful for the Enlightenment illustrating the deification of Knowledge
The story has beed reused many times in Arts. One more example is in A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court from Mark Twain (1890) and I am sure is many more examples
And now we know that the Incas had a sophisticated understanding of astronomy and detailed astronomical records and observatories. It is highly unlikely that trick would've worked on them, they would've probably predicted the eclipse themselves.
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
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"
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
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.
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.
( same source as above )
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 well known that due to his economic interest in enslavement of native people he did not attempt a great deal of conversion. It is discussed in La Caida de Cristóbal Colón, for instance, in chapter 7. I believe there is a general consensous that slave taking and mineral exploitation were his priorities.
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.
[0]: https://www.space.com/27412-christopher-columbus-lunar-eclip...