The flip flip side of that coin involves marginalization, a host of -ists and -isms, and even criminalization of things indigenous extending way past the initial concerns (infantcide, in this case).

Even if a people have a tradition of infanticide for children with "bad souls" or disability, it would be more honest to look at explanatory examples of those terms, and the available resources. What do they mean when they say "bad soul"? If a child were born in a very isolated tribe with, say, spina bifida myelomeningocele or any other condition that would make it impossible to live without major surgical intervention or other treatment that may not be feasible, is it kinder to let him continue in difficulty and possible pain until he dies on his own? I think modern medical options make us forget that people of the past had to deal with decisions like this.

Basically they're using a very rare, already illegal practice as the basis that the cultural/religious practices of the people are in "error" and need to be "corrected".

And those who teach this actually believe this, being fooled by their own propaganda.

Am I at least in the ballpark?

If the patterns are more than strongly established only the extreme dishonesty of intense denial can dismiss said established patterns and their racist, religionist, creedist ramifications. Patterns of indigenous ways and people suffering for decades and centuries after religious and cultural conversion are strongly established in many instances and such assaults are launched on the basis of thinking errors and deception perpetrated by supposed sacred rescuers/protectors who wish to supplant their own religion and culture based on it.

It is patently dishonest to strongly associate rare and already illegal instances of infanticide with indigenous ways/beliefs/culture and then proclaim supplanted religious as savior and protector from evil.

Of course, the same people who don't like their Johari windows of self-awareness cranked open a bit think they're going to pull the wool over other sheeples' eyes. They think that if they try to galvanize people against an already illegal but rare practice that one will accept their cultural and religious triumphalism and "superiority" built upon deception and other MFs.

Sometimes my initial suspicion is unfounded, such as if the group is trying to get equal legal rights. Sometimes.

But most of the time when that kind of language is used I find that the group in question has a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. In other words, to paraphrase Sari (if I understand what she's saying correctly) the conduct of the group in question ends up causing harm to the people they are going on a "mission" for. Whether this harm is intentional or unintentional, physical, mental, and/or spiritual is something that has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. But the one similarity is that it's there.