Las Casas's reaction to the atrocities, which the depiction shows, lead him to advocate for abolition of slavery.

That is, dm3730's comment concerns events which took place before slavery was prohibited, while your response concerns a later period of time, making it a rather inapplicable comment.

And I'll note that Spain had African slaves (not abolished in Cuba until 1886), and allowed slavery of indigenous people who rebelled against Spanish rule.

There's a debate over the genocide question. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda#Deaths,_disease,_an... says:

> Raphael Lemkin (coiner of the term genocide) considers Spain's abuses of the native population of the Americas to constitute cultural and even outright genocide including the abuses of the Encomienda system.

Do note also the "Skepticism toward alleged demographic declines and accusations of genocide" section on the same page.

The encomienda system allowed for forced labor, with severe punishment for not complying. But no, it wasn't, technically, slavery.

You ask "How's that possible [that the indigenous population of Bolivia is like 80%."

Where's the incompatibility? Tell me, what's the indigenous population of Cuba?

The US genocide of the indigenous Californians killed something like 90% of the indigenous population. But there's no similar genocide of the indigenous Hawaiians or Alaskans. Does the lack of a US genocide in one place mean that there was no genocide anywhere? Clearly no. So your example doesn't prove anything.

You write "all indigenous people had the same rights as anyone".

That's like saying that the US founders believed that "all men are created equal."

First off, did conversos have the same rights as non-conversos?

Second, do you believe the sistema de castas did not exist, or had negligible effect? Because, to quote from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/60962114/Oxf...

"Yet, there were very real spiritual and social consequences tied to this system in which Indians and Africans were deemed to be of lesser spiritual ability, received a watered-down version of the faith, and were relegated to an inferior spiritual status within the religious fold. ... That culture of inferiority and suspicion around the purity of their religious belief and practice was reinforced socially and spatially throughout colonial society. Because they were perceived as constantly in need of correction, colonial controls on their bodies and souls were all the more heightened. In addition to limited access to the sacraments,Indians and Africans experienced heavy regulation of their spiritual and social activities. Indians were regularly restricted to reducciones as a means of taming their natural inclinations to better prepare them for proper Christian practice. Africans were subject to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition to regulate any unorthodox or immoral behavior. Confraternities and religious brotherhoods, arguably the most active aspect of popular religious life in the Spanish and Portuguese Americas, were often segregated by casta category or ethnic origin, with whites holding positions of power to monitor their ritual practice."

Hardly an example of "same rights", no?