Obviously the amount of deaths due to Columbus is very hard to calculate, as well as the amount of deaths in general around that area, but the total number of indigenous deaths due to European settlers in the Americas around that time has been estimated at 50 million[1]. — how many were directly due to Columbus is of course difficult to calculate.
The total death toll of W.W.2. is 75 million on all sides, for comparison.
> I have no idea what your currency is and who is on it.
My currency is American and every single one of them has more native bodies on them than Columbus. President's day has zero people protesting against it.
Well who's on it then? Since the source I cited comes with an estimate that 90% of the indigenous population was killed off before the U.S.A. even broke off from the British Empire.
You're mostly talking about disease in that case, which was "nobody's fault", with a side-helping of 7 years war.
On American currency, Washington, Jefferson and Jackson (!) are most relevant although they're obviously not the only authority figures that were all about taking land.
The first ~12 presidents or so are each responsible for more atrocities against natives than Columbus could ever have done on the one crappy island he occupied for a few years. You don't go from 13 coastal colonies to "sea to shining sea" without breaking a few eggs.
This source suggests that the estimate is that 25–50% of members of most tribes were felled by disease. Given that 90% of the population was felled overall, it seems unlikely that most were felled due to disease.
General knowledge, but I checked your link in your previous comment, and that article put 55M of the 60M on disease in the (early, pre-british) timeframe they're discussing.
Sources of death, wider timeframe:
* Disease
* Columbus on one tiny island
* Spaniards in general who are not Columbus (who was italian but sponsored by Spain)
* British/Americans
Disease sounds like #1 from what I can tell. Spaniards might edge out Americans, or maybe we're worse, I don't know. We left fewer survivors but they were in a larger area. Columbus for a few years on one island is clearly last place.
Nothing in that link puts 55 million of the 60 on disease.
It claims that 55 million of the population of 60 million was killed by “violence and disease”.
> Following Christopher Columbus' arrival in North America in 1492, violence and disease killed 90% of the indigenous population — nearly 55 million people — according to a study published this year.
Given that the other source claims that 25-50% of most tribes was lost to disease, I find the idea that disease caused almost all of the deaths to be unsupported unless you have something else than “general knowledge” which is contradicted by sources, which, admittedly, are estimates as they always are.
