Few are. Including myself. Are you a saint?
The Muslim expansion had cut the West off from India. Columbus set sail to find a new route to India. He did not land in India but he had more balls then a million "men" in the European Union combined today or a million "men" in "America" today. No one is calling for the dismantling of the name "America" though are they (derived from another Italian).
Those we call "Indians" in the Americas are not the Indians Columbus thought he had encountered because as you note... he never arrived in India.
The disease blame game is a dangerous one. Because diseases still spread from one nation or population to another today, and one can easily stigmatize entire peoples. Stigmatize whole nations in various Developing Countries.
So, I prefer to take a more "enlightened" view over issues about diseases.
Now, this is 100% false, so false its tantamount to calling all Muslims terrorists, actually its more false than that. The Catholic Church had the complete opposite view point. Number one, the Church does not baptize "subhumans" or give them the other sacraments of the Church including the Holy Eucharist. You ever see Priests giving communion bread and wine to dogs and horses? No.
You are thinking of some of the Protestant churches in the United States of America. They are the one's that held that opinion.
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church attempted to protect the Amerindians from the excessive nature of the white man, the white laity. Usually they failed because the white laity had the guns and could simply drive them out. Nonetheless, at one point, under the Jesuits in Latin America the largest land army in the whole of the Americas was Amerindian, trained and armed by Jesuits, as the Jesuits got fed up with white laymen ambushing and abducting Amerindians belonging to Jesuit Reductions.
Modern day Detroit and LA look like a living hell hole compared to the Jesuit Reductions, a somewhat socialist paradise, in which everyone had a home, food, and was given medical care no matter what.
Not all Amerindian nations were the same (no more than all European nations). Some were extremely war-like, other more peaceful. With the peaceful Amerindian nations the Catholic priest often wrote condescending of them as being "innocents." Because they walked around butt naked like an innocent child. The Church never once proclaimed Amerindians to be subhuman. Not to say that some individual priests may not have felt that way. But that's like Muslim bombers. A small percent.
Have you ever read about the Amerindians of "Oregon Country" or the Amerindians of Mexico that were known as Aztecs?
Trust when I say this... they all mass murdered and to a jaw dropping level. The Aztecs in particular in relation to their demonic god worshiping with human sacrificial offerings.
A number of those Amerindian nations of Oregon Country were savages. Yeah, that's what I said. When you raid a small party of travelers and then roast the infant children over fire in front of their mothers, when you torture men for days, dancing around them in ecstatic celebration, you're pretty much a damned savage. This was common warfare practice of these nomadic or semi-nomadic Amerindian nations of the Southwest and Northwest. It was not all Amerindian nations of course. Some were pretty peaceful people. But the Amerindians were not one monolithic group.
