Pizarro and Cortes only managed to overthrow the Inca and Aztecs because they had armies of oppressed vassal states eager to overthrow their masters.
All that gets ignored by the apologists. I mean, who WOULDN’T accept suzerainty of a far-away ruler if it meant the end of human sacrifice and of a far-closer tyrant?
Indeed, some have calculated the native army fighting with Cortez to have numbered 40,000.
“Pizarro and Cortes...had armies of oppressed vassal states eager to overthrow their masters.”
That plus lances, armor and horses; especially horses. Time and again during the conquest, the Inca struggled to deal with the horsemen, they dug pits and set traps, but failed every time. The Spaniards were great lancemen.
We have a winner!
However bad Spanish and Portuguese rule was in Central and South America, the previous rulers were far worse.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but I'll take Roman Catholic error any day over god-kings who practice human sacrifice and cut the beating hearts out of still-living bodies to sacrifice people to their demonic false gods on a blood-stained altar.
Before North American natives start talking about how much better they were than the Aztecs, we need to understand North American tribal populations as being somewhat comparable to the warlike barbarian nomads of Mongolia and Central Asia, compared to the settled civilizations of China and India. The main reason they weren't as bad as the Aztecs is that they were nomads and weren't organized enough to systematically implement their evil practices while subjugating large populations.
Take a look at the captivity narratives of Europeans from the 1600s until the late 1800s who fell into the hands of “Indians.” With some rare exceptions, they paint a picture of barbarism and sexual lasciviousness that knew no bounds. There are reasons why it was said that white women would be better off dead if they fell into the hands of Indians.
Before people discount those narratives as exaggerated fiction written to sell books (which in some cases was a motive) take a look at the experiences of the Lewis and Clark Expedition in the Mandan Villages with wild immorality with native women. The European men were quite willing to participate in those practices, and their venereal diseases were quite likely acquired as a result.
Of course that doesn't apply to every Native American tribe, or every individual in the tribes. Also, as contact between Native Americans and Europeans increased, quite a few improvements happened in tribal behavior. Observing stable family life and land cultivation practices while attending a mission school, or seeing it at a distance while trading with white men, can have considerable effects on a culture. There are very good secular reasons to adopt Christian views of family life and work ethics -- reasons our modern culture seems to be destroying as it races to return to pre-Christian barbarism.
The myth of the “noble savage” is just that — a myth.
Christianity, even in its Roman Catholic form, proceeds from the concept of the imago dei (image of God) being present in people. That means we should treat enemies and captives with a certain level of respect due to their essential humanity.
While Christians obviously do really bad things from time to time, that Judeo-Christian concept is utterly lacking in most non-Christian civilizations. Take a look at the way the Japanese soldiers treated their captives for a modern example.
Christianity has consequences. Rejecting Christianity has consequences as well.