No. it isn't.
The percentage of mine workers were native by majority. Because it was more ecconomical that way.
And I wasn;t hinting at genocide, but saying that they were no better treated by Hispanics than they would be under Northen Europeans and later Americans.
this was indeed true. Most mines were in the andes, far inland, so if you brought in 100 african slaves you'd be lucky to end up with 10 at the end of the trip. They had no resistance to european disseases AND no resistance to the south american ones And might not take well to the climate. Just rounding up a local village and sending everyone to the mines was easier. It happened, it wasn't good, or pretty, neither was slavery or any of the other ways humans have found to exploit other humans.
And the "interbreeding" of europeans and locals was, especially in the early stages, a mixture of forcing women or paying them. On the average soldier salary, guess what was most common.
History isn't pretty. If you have delicate sensibilities, you should try to influence the future, the past is not sensitive, it's brutal. And if you want to say "well, that's 300, 400 years ago"... Vietnam anyone? or the movies that got out from Iraq? Guantanamo Bay?
And yes, other countries do stuff like that too, but none of them (china, russia for example) claim to be good or to be interested in anything but themself