About what? Romans practiced ritual human killing, too. They acted very haughty about others doing it, but they buried people under a temple when Hannibal whom

About what? Romans practiced ritual human killing, too. They acted very haughty about others doing it, but they buried people under a temple when Hannibal whomped them at Cannae and they very happily and publicly performed ritual killings of prisoners of war during triumphs. Cato thought that was fine--why then, not, Roma delenda est? Another example that comes to mind: the xōchiyāōyōtl in Mexico did involve human sacrifice, and it even was a nontrivial ramp-up in the act from pre-Mexica societies. Such acts then used in part to legitimate oppressive activity by European colonizers. They needed, after all, to be civilized. But contemporaneously Christopher Columbus himself, the guy who's got pictures in American government buildings, instituted "bring us impossible amounts of gold every year or we chop off your hands" and "test your swords' sharpness by hacking off children's legs" when lording over the Taino. This is not an incongruity that can be reconciled, it must be understood and accepted, and the idea of "taking sides" in this flippant way for a conflict two thousand years old is deeply, deeply foolish.