Human Sacrifice David Francisco Analysis

The debate over human sacrifice was a big part of the conquest of New Spain, we can see this in Bernal Diaz's account. He validates the Spanish religious need to save the indigenous from their brutality. On the other hand David Carrasco in his essays “ The Exaggerations of Human Sacrifice” and “Human Sacrifice/Debt Payment, from the Aztec Point of View” questioned this by implying how it was overemphasize by the Spaniards. Diaz's positionality included Spanish bias due to the fact that they did not comprehended this rituals, for this reasons Carrasco's views are less bias and explores the human sacrifice from an indigenous perspectives. Therefore I agree with Carrasco's argument due to the fact that, human sacrifice had a deeper reasoning that

The Spaniards used the sacrifice in a way to prove how they were savage people and how they had to defend their selves to any cost. They always referred to any native violence as a horrendous acts but when they talked about their cruelties they were “deserving the punishment of death in accordance with military law”4 but how does human sacrifice a cultural ritual be so much worse than their actions, an example is this scene from Diaz account, “with the grease from a fat Indian woman whom we had killed and cut open.”5 Indians had a reason for their action and did not sacrifice their people for malicious motivation like Spaniards did. In Diaz account the Spaniard actions were not described as significant and vivid as Indians were, making it always seem as spaniard's actions were always “defensive or provoked, skillful, and clever.”5This creates a paradox between the spaniards cruelty and the indigenous brutality, making spaniards try to justify their action due to their morals and making it seem like it was the Indigenous fault why they were being so cruel and heartless in their