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.
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.