[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
According to your article, the Taino were a subset of the total Arawak population, so the number range of 100k-400k you provide is meaningless. Basically it just proves there had to have been AT LEAST that many Arawaks.

"The term Arawak (from aru, the Lokono word for cassava flour), was used to designate the friendly Amerindians encountered by the Spanish in the Caribbean. These include the Taino..."


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm doing my best here. Of course, your claim that the entire Arawak population was wiped out is untrue, since the Caribs survived, so I think you have to give me some leeway to shift the focus to the tribe that was actually the subject of the supposed genocide. The 3 million "on Haiti" is clearly ridiculous, as is the rest of that site you posted.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is what it actually says.

"The main reasons for the Taino's massive decline was their lack of resistance to disease introduced by Europeans, especially smallpox, and being mercilessly overworked and tortured by the Spanish in mines and on farms. The Spanish also murdered the Taino in countless massacres to try to create obedience through fear."

So it was a combination of disease and the fact that they were brutally murdered.

The actual numbers are insignificant. Who cares if Hitler oversaw the execution of 6 million Jews, and Columbus ONLY killed like 200,000 Native Americans. They both committed mass genocide. It is reprehensible to condone a National holiday that celebrates the achievements of a mass murderer

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it says the main reasons were disease and overwork...

Furthermore, the difference between a population dying out of a combination of disease, slavery, and outright murder and an attempt to wipe out a population by systematic killing is huge. Huge. Slavery and massacres are not genocide as the term is generally defined. Disease is far out of the expanse of the term.