Earlier quoted context omitted.
The destruction of those codixes is, without a doubt, one of the greatest acts of cultural vandalism in history. Absolutely tragic. At the same time, I've read a bit more about that incident, and... this is probably not politically correct to say, but I did develop some sympathy for that bishop. Yes, he was a religious zealot who couldn't distinguish other cultures from "satanism". But also, well, the Maya were in a…
[flagged]
But Diego de Landa wasn't taking it in as a whole. He was just having his personal experience. There's little reason to doubt the child sacrifice incident: that kind of thing absolutely did occur, and is well-attested both textually and archeologically. He didn't have the 10,000' view of the American genocide: he had a personal view, and he acted accordingly.
Usually I'm not this sympathetic. When I read first-hand accounts of Pizzaro's conquest of the Inca at Cajamarca, for example, I'm appalled. Pizzaro's guys take umbrage at the Incan' Emporer disrespecting a bible by throwing it, incomprehending, on the ground. In retribution for this, they delight -- positively delight -- in immediately slaughtering several thousand unarmed members of the emperor's court. It's absolutely sick and indefensible, driven by a religious zealotry that (IMHO) had stripped them of their basic humanity.
I'd always assumed that Diego de Landa was a similar kind of zealot, but when I read more, I found that it wasn't so simple. That's all I'm saying. Even when things are black and white at a high level, there can be greys in the details.