By defining me as being of some class who portray the Aztecs and Mayans as "peaceful and benevolent souls" conquered by the Conquistadors, shows that you really had no argument with me, unless you leave off the hyperbole and favor of a more objective view.
Rather than than some unreferenced Protestants whose protests fit your description, perhaps it would be more fitting for you to target Catholics such as Dominican friar Bartolomé de Las Casas (in the process of beatification), the first resident Bishop of Chiapas, famous for his A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.
While there can be debate as to what is a balanced view, your portrayal diverts the attention away from how "peaceful and benevolent" church teachings could be considered to be in regards to dealing with opposition, and the submission required to them during the times they are in force.
And which, as pointed out, Protestants also had to unlearn the use of the sword of men to deal with theological dissent, in contrast to the N.T. church as seen in Scripture.
Not defining "you" as an individual sole holder of the views I am criticizing, which is why I said the more general "you people" - who attempt to pivot any argument to another focus. The Catholic Church is roundly crticized for whiping out native American cultures, but then is criticized again from the Protestants when they don't enforce good Catholic doctrine on them today. It's a no win situation. I'd rather have someone accept Jesus with a somewhat warped view than not have heard of Him at all. I think Jesus is smart enough to sort out the difference and intentions.
Lastly (and off topic) I get increasingly disgusted when people argue about who has the better Jesus when our society is becoming more degenerate every day.