Explanation: It's been common in recent years, with increased critiques of colonialism and imperialism, including past colonialism and imperialism, for there to be a certain amount of backlash to the new narratives being discussed. To some degree this is normal, natural, inevitable, and even desirable - academia and popular culture alike should be in a constant state of correction and re-evaluation, for as long as it is possible to correct and re-evaluate.
One particular 'counterpoint' of note against narratives against Spanish colonization is that the Aztecs were horrible, actually. And they were! Not just from a standpoint of "They were past cultures, and past cultures tend to conflict with our modern values", but from a standpoint of "They were hated even at the time for being vicious and bloodthirsty towards their vassals and rivals by the standards of their fellow Nahua city-states." This is true! The Aztecs were an immensely shitty polity to have as an overlord, and their vassals wasted little time in swapping to the Spanish side once the slightest chance of overthrowing Aztec rule was presented. Whether the Spanish were an actual improvement is... debatable, but it would be certainly hard to unambiguously root for the Aztecs simply on the balance of each side's moral merits.
... but the Aztecs also only controlled a tiny sliver of modern Mexico; whereas the Spanish Empire conquered everything from Cali to Chile, most of which was controlled by polities and communities which were not nearly as bad as the Aztecs, and therefore for whom Spanish colonial rule was certainly a fucking step down from not being enslaved and exploited and having native cultures erased and literally burned for offending Spanish sensibilities.