A discussion of Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish with John Peloquin (Metis):
>> At the time of the potato famine, Ireland (controlled by the British at the time) was a net EXPORTER of beef. Speaking the Irish language and demonstrations of Irish identity (playing standing bagpipes-hence the Irish play sitting, singing certain songs, wearing green etc.) were punishable by DEATH which was freely and commonly dealt out. If this is not a result of the conquering government's genocidal policies, I don't know what would have been. <<
But did this persecution, which I didn't address, cause the potato blight? It may have exacerbated the blight's effects, but exacerbation isn't causation. Taking advantage of a natural blight isn't quite as pernicious as stealing a people's food resources, then withholding the substitute food guaranteed to the people by treaty.
>> In some ways what was done to the Irish was worse than to Indians, there were no reservations for the Irish, their lands were forfeit in their entirety. <<
If the Irish were allowed to stay on the land, even as renters, their treatment was arguably better than the Indians'. Relocation, especially to lands that can't support a culture, is arguably the worst treatment possible short of physical assault. It's essentially the same as being deported to a concentration camp, which—as history shows—is one step short of annihilation.
>> I think my parents were pretty much the last to feel the strongly held stereotypes against the Irish, and as only my mom who looks Native, not Irish, has Irish ancestry, I didn't hear too much about this from her. These things still exist, but lack the power to hurt as much as they once did. For example, I was AT a Notre Dame football game in which the opposing team threw fish and liquor bottles onto the field (to mock the Catholic and Irish origins of the school). And there was the "skit" put on by the Stanford band only TWO YEARS AGO, in which they portrayed their opinion of the Notre Dame fighting Irish as stumbling around drunkenly. Now, is that a "now harmless" stereotype from the 1800s? It represents what the Anglo/Protestant ruling class thinks of Catholics and especially Irish Catholics. <<
I'm not saying Irish stereotypes don't exist or don't hurt people still. I'm saying the "fighting Irish" stereotype has virtually disappeared and the "drunken Irish" stereotype has become less prevalent.
>> "Fighting" isn't a trait normally associated with the Irish, so "Fighting Irish" isn't particularly harmful. <<
>> Maybe now in these enlightened times, but at the time the nickname was given (by a sportswriter about the tenacity of the then Notre Dame Terriers against the football powerhouses of the times), prize fighters were predominantly Irish and the fractious and bibulous nature of the Irish people (accurate or not) was well accepted and believed by the dominant culture. <<
>> Being a "savage" or a "warrior" *IS* a stereotype normally associated with Indians, so it perpetuates our biased cultural beliefs. If the Irish supported a major sports team called the drunken Irish, then we could talk about a comparable stereotype. <<
>> As I demonstrate above, this drunkenness thing remains a public perception/stereotype that has damaged the Irish probably about as badly as it has Native peoples. As I descend from both about equally, I should think I know what I am talking about here. <<
Right, but I've compared "Fighting Irish" to "Fighting Sioux," not "Drunken Irish" to "Fighting Sioux."
>> Most thinking people are well aware that these are offensive and are demeaning. <<
A lot of allegedly thinking people aren't thinking enough.
>> The Notre Dame Fighting Irish took the originally pejorative epithet, made it their own, and were able to control and diminish the negative aspects of the stereotype. Since the school was, at one time largely Irish Catholic, they decided which aspects of this stereotype were to be emphasized. Indian people lack the numbers and thus the institutions that the Irish had, so this route of co-opting these offensive stereotypes is not available to them. <<
Right, I guess. (I don't know the precise history of Notre Dame or the "Fighting Irish.") Many Indian schools have names like Warriors or Braves, so it's not as if Native people want to repudiate the idea of themselves as warriors. What they want to do is control and diminish the negative aspects of this stereotype, as you put it. Or to put the stereotype in its proper context, which means changing it from a stereotype to a more reality-based image.
>> The perception of Irish Catholics and Catholics in general as being part of the power structure is recent and still incomplete—e. g. the disgusting sucking-up of our present power structure to VIRULENTLY anti Catholic and racist elements exemplified by Bob Jones "University". <<
Most people who know anything about the Bob Jones University think of it as racist, not anti-Catholic. And being anti-Catholic isn't synonymous with being anti-Irish. I often criticize the Pope and his followers for not living up to Jesus's words, and that has nothing to do with the Irish.
>> But did this persecution, which I didn't address, cause the potato blight? <<
No, but it wasn't like the conquerors cared. At the time of the potato famine, Ireland was a net exporter of beef to England. The Irish relied on potatoes because the English policies forced the Irish to divide their farms to the point where only potatoes could support the farmer on the little patch of land left to farm. Similar was done to the Scots (another tribal and Celtic people FWIW) during the clearances. I think this was perhaps a test case of what was eventually done to Indians.
>> If the Irish were allowed to stay on the land, even as renters, their treatment was arguably better than the Indians'. <<
But they weren't allowed to stay. they were forced to emigrate, become travelers (who exist to this day) or die. It is curious that about the same time in Wisconsin, my Menomonii ancestors were given a similar choice—emigrate to Minnesota or give up your identity as Native and assimilate.
>> Relocation, especially to lands that can't support a culture, is arguably the worst treatment possible short of physical assault. It's essentially the same as being deported to a concentration camp, which—as history shows—is one step short of annihilation. <<
Usually it does result in the annihilation of at least a lot of the culture.
>> I'm not saying Irish stereotypes don't exist or don't hurt people still. I'm saying the "fighting Irish" stereotype has virtually disappeared and the "drunken Irish" stereotype has become less prevalent. <<
I think what is so awful about this Stanford band thing is that it shows that the holders of power STILL have this impression of Irish people. God only knows what they REALLY think about indians etc. They felt it was now ok to mock the Irish because Americans of Irish decent but you can bet that they probably think similarly about other ethnic groups. I suppose one could take heart in the fact that at least they were too ashamed to exhibit racist opinions etc.
>> I don't know the precise history of Notre Dame or the "Fighting Irish." <<
The place was founded in the 1840s as a mission in Indiana. The Potowatomis gave the Holy Cross fathers from France the land where it exists so that they could set up a school for the Indians and the predominantly French "half breed" catholics that lived in the area. Potowatomis can enroll without paying tuition to this day as part of this deal. Since it was a Catholic institution, the student body was predominantly Catholic and therefor, when the Irish began to predominate in the US as the primary Catholic ethnic group, the student body became predominantly Irish. The sports teams were originally named "The terriers". However, in the early 20th Century, a sports writer writing about the defeat handed to then powerful Army by the players of this small ethnic school referred to "those fighting Irish—since there were so many Irish surnames on the roster. Incidentally, in those times of social darwinism, sport was an important vehicle for demonstrating the "superiority" of the ruling class. The fact that those Irish were competitive at the highest level had more than a little effect on the acceptance by the dominant culture of the Irish as full members of society.
Similar was seen in the great Native athletes, but I suspect that as the absolute numbers of Native athletes were not large (because there simply weren't as many Native people or Native people who identified as so—my grandfather was racially Menomonii, but "passed" as white for example) the exploits of those Native athletes were not generalized to the rest of the Native people. Perhaps if they were, things for Native peoples would have been changed a bit more for the better today .
>> Many Indian schools have names like Warriors or Braves, so it's not as if Native people want to repudiate the idea of themselves as warriors. <<
And they shouldn't in my opinion. The ideals adhered to by the warrior are laudable ones.
>> What they want to do is control and diminish the negative aspects of this stereotype, as you put it. <<
Right! That's the important thing.
>> Or to put the stereotype in its proper context, which means changing it from a stereotype to a more reality-based image. <<
I think that has to be the goal, doesn't it? Fortunately, Native peoples are starting to get, by their own means, the resources to exert this needed control.
I stand enlightened on Irish and Notre Dame history. So the Americans let epidemics ravage the Indians and the British let the potato blight ravage the Irish. The Americans forced the Indians off their land and the British did the same to the Irish.
I'd still argue that the American treatment of its Native population was uniquely bad, or at least somewhat worse. Americans destroyed Native shrines, kidnapped Native children to send them to boarding schools, and sterilized Native women. Did the British destroy Catholic churches, kidnap Irish children, and sterilize Irish women?
I'm pretty sure the breaking of several hundred government treaties was unique to the Indians. I'm less sure about the dozens of wars, battles, and massacres we Americans conducted against the Indians, but I suspect we had the edge over the British and Irish there too. Too bad for the victims.
Another response from John
I think the crux of the argument about "Fighting Sioux" is that a lot of indian people are offended by it. As for the ridiculous mascots, I'm embarrassed and offended by them. My son sees that crap and thinks that all indians live in teepees, wear Sioux headdresses etc. I took him to the Field museum the last time I was in Chicago to show him what Menominee and Chippewa people REALLY wore and where they lived and what their houses looked like and pointed out that his greatgranpa wore that kind of hat etc. not some stupid made up costume and that he didn't speak like Tonto when he spoke English or French, he was an educated man in a time when that was unusual even for white people. When my Irish American grandmother married him, she was "marrying up"—which is a statement on where in the social ladder the Irish stood in the early 20th century!
Whatever the reasons held by non-indian people as to the origins of these "nicknames", the fact that it hurts people without any real upside to it should be taken into account and the nicknames changed.
However you are incorrect on many points regarding the Irish.
The Irish were historically regarded by the dominant culture as both fierce and fanatical fighters—though the white power structure thought them intellectually incapable of effective organized resistance. Remember John L. Sullivan and the other turn of the century famous prize fighters? The Irish were stereotyped in that manner AT THE TIME THE NICKNAME "FIGHTING IRISH" was applied to the Notre Dame football team by an Eastern Sports writer. The original nickname was the Terriers—a small dog with great courage.
The Irish WERE regarded by the rest of "WHITE" society as savage and criminal. Where do you think the word PADDYwagon came from? This term is still used by educated people (myself included) to describe the jail vans used by police to transport large numbers of arrested people. Most people don't realize the derivation is from a word used to describe the Irish that is as derogatory as the N word used by Jerry Springer show guests when describing Black people.
Until about the early part of the 20th century to 1930 or so, Irish people WERE regarded as a different (subhuman) race (read Swift's satires of the attitudes of the British towards the Irish, especially the descriptions of the Irish having tails). They are now regarded as white people just in time to share the blame for everything the white man did. Though it can be argued the Irish in America climbed over the backs of black people to become "white".
At the time of the potato famine, Ireland was a NET EXPORTER OF BEEF. This starvation of the Irish was a conscious and deliberate British decision to facilitate what would now be called genocide or ethnic cleansing as also were a great number of laws passed to subjugate the Irish. The only reason that treaties were not signed with the Irish was that the British didn't have to use this subterfuge to get what they wanted from the Irish, they'd already bought off the nobles who were supposed to protect the interests of their vassals. Whereas the White man had to use this treaty subterfuge to get peace and land from the Indians. There was also the fact that the white man really didn't know too much about how to survive and prosper in the wilds of North American and needed help from the indians (which is where we metis came into being).
The substance of your replies to criticisms of the "indian position" based on the Irish experience (as if all indian people were of one mind on the issue—this is typical dehumanization of Indian people by the press in that, because of their ethnic heritage, Indians all think alike) really is unneeded. What the Irish in America did was to become "white", not become accepted. They toned down the differences in their culture and behavior to become accepted by the dominant culture as "one of us". and they lost a lot in the process. Your examples of the Irish that "made it" pretty much prove my point. I look at some of the ethnically Irish kids I went to school with at Notre Dame and they were just as (if not more so) clenched-jawed, acquisitive, yuppie-clad, and bloodless as the WASPs that oppressed their ancestors. My ancestors lived, were married and buried on the rez, I still have cousins there. But my line left it after taking money in treaties to become "white" and "accepted" by the dominant culture. The result is that I am no longer an indian, I am now a white man with Native ancestors and the Native culture I retained is pretty much limited to the stories from my grandpa and the mocs I wore as a kid.
Those that wonder why Indian people might not like the "honor" of a nickname and don't "get over it" also don't realize that these Indian people are resisting those almost irresistible pressures to become just some more white people, those same pressures that my ancestors could not resist.
>> The Irish were historically regarded by the dominant culture as both fierce and fanatical fighters <<
Yes, but I said "Fighting" isn't a trait normally associated with the Irish—as in associated now, not when the association began 100 or 150 years ago. I'll be glad to clarify this in my posting so it's clear I'm talking about now.
>> The Irish WERE regarded by the rest of "WHITE" society as savage and criminal. <<
You keep emphasizing were and was as if that's your point. I thought it was my point. "Fighting Irish" may have been a bad stereotype once, but now it's relatively harmless.
Indians may gain the same acceptance over time. If they do, and people realize they're a vibrant, multifaceted people (like the Irish), the sting of the "Indian warrior" stereotype may fade away. My point is that what may happen isn't what's happening now.
Besides, being pugilistic or even criminal isn't as bad as being savage, I'd say. Again, the "savage" stereotype persists now. And it's persisted a lot longer—500 years—than the "fighting" or "drunken" Irish stereotype in America. (Sorry, I'm not sure older English stereotypes count when we're debating stereotypes in America.)
The drunken Irish stereotype also persists, which is why I've compared the two. But the fighting Irish stereotype doesn't persist—not nearly as strongly, anyway. That means the "Fighting Irish" and "Fighting Sioux" stereotypes aren't comparable now.
>> Until about the early part of the 20th century to 1930 or so, Irish people WERE regarded as a different (subhuman) race (read Swift's satires of the attitudes of the British towards the Irish, especially the descriptions of the Irish having tails). <<
I've read Gulliver's Travels and "A Modest Proposal." Wasn't the satirical position in the latter pro-Irish? Yes, I think it was. As one website I checked put it, Swift "devoted much of his writing to the struggle for Ireland against the English hegemony."
No matter what Swift believed, he wrote these works in 1726 and 1729, so they're hardly evidence for prejudice against the Irish in 1930. Considering how intentionally exaggerated these works were, I don't think we can take Swift's satirical views as representative of anything. Not without supporting evidence, at least.
>> At the time of the potato famine, Ireland was a NET EXPORTER OF BEEF. <<
You've now made this point three times—twice by capitalizing "exporter" for emphasis. I haven't disagreed with the point any of the three times. Will it help if I explicitly concede the point?
The Irish were net exporters of beef. Like the Indians, they were once self-sufficient. After the potato blight and the predatory British policies, they had to import food. Like the Indians after the Indian Wars, they had to depend on others for sustenance.
>> This starvation of the Irish was a conscious and deliberate British decision to facilitate what would now be called genocide or ethnic cleansing <<
I said the British took advantage of the blight, didn't I? But taking advantage of it isn't the same as causing it. Americans practiced genocide against the Indians with or without the excuse of a blight, so I consider that situation worse.
British didn't sign treaties with Irish
>> The only reason that treaties were not signed with the Irish was that the British didn't have to use this subterfuge to get what they wanted from the Irish, they'd already bought off the nobles who were supposed to protect the interests of their vassals. <<
I didn't try to explain the reasons. I simply said the many, many broken treaties constituted a worse crime, in my opinion. If the British didn't break any treaties with the Irish, I don't see how you can say I was "incorrect."
>> The substance of your replies to criticisms of the "indian position" based on the Irish experience (as if all indian people were of one mind on the issue—this is typical dehumanization of Indian people by the press in that, because of their ethnic heritage, Indians all think alike) really is unneeded. <<
I often state that Indians aren't of one mind on most issues. I don't state it every single time because it would be cumbersome. In this case, I've generalized about what (I believe) most Indians think.
And I think it's understood that when you generalize, it is a generalization. No one thinks that if you say Americans like baseball or Baywatch, you mean every single American. What you mean is they generally like it.
>> What the Irish in America did was to become "white", not become accepted. <<
Since "white" is accepted in America, I'm not sure what the difference is. Anyone who becomes white also becomes accepted, so the point seems moot.
>> They toned down the differences in their culture and behavior to become accepted by the dominant culture as "one of us". and they lost a lot in the process. <<
Does this contradict something I said? Is it more evidence I was "incorrect"? If so, I seem to be missing the point. Please elucidate.
>> Your examples of the Irish that "made it" pretty much prove my point. <<
Okay. And they also prove my point: that most Irish have gained mainstream acceptance, unlike most Indians. So we're both happy.
If they gained acceptance by becoming "more white," it wasn't at my bidding. Nor am I advocating that Indians become "more white." Your point is valid, but I don't see how it's relevant to the "Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish" issue.
>> But my line left it after taking money in treaties to become "white" and "accepted" by the dominant culture. The result is that I am no longer an indian, I am now a white man with Native ancestors and the Native culture I retained is pretty much limited to the stories from my grandpa and the mocs I wore as a kid. <<
If you think I've argued for minorities abandoning their culture and traditions and assimilating into the mainstream anywhere on the huge BlueCornComics.com site, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. The multicultural perspective I've advocated a thousand times calls for recognizing and encouraging cultural differences. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.
Indians still fighting assimilation
>> Those that wonder why Indian people might not like the "honor" of a nickname and don't "get over it" also don't realize that these Indian people are resisting those almost irresistible pressures to become just some more white people <<
Right. That's the subtext to many of my arguments. But this person asked for a proof that "Fighting Sioux" is bad, not a proof that assimilation is bad. I gave him what he asked for.
Since the pro-mascot people don't get the basic, obvious points, it's usually a waste of time to go into the deeper, subtler points. We need to get them to understand the basic and obvious points first. Which is why my explanation is useful, I'd say. Perhaps it's even necessary, for some people.
Let's recap: I have no problem saying the Indians and Irish both were victims of genocidal policies. I see nothing wrong with postings such as "Two People, One History: The Irish and the Indian." The following quote comes from this site:
After the Great Hunger in Ireland, the population was reduced by half. After the deliberate slaughter of millions of buffalo, the Native American fared much worse, and since the first Englishman was welcomed on their shores up until the last few decades, their population has been reduced by almost half approximately every ten years.
To reiterate: "The Native American fared much worse...." And from the Information Please Almanac 1997 on Ireland:
The population had reached 8.25 million when the great potato famine of 1846-1848 took many lives and drove millions to emigrate to America. By 1921 it was down to 4.3 million.
In the meantime, anti-British agitation continued along with demands for Irish home rule....The Irish Free State was established as a dominion on Dec. 6, 1922, with the six northern counties as part of the United Kingdom.
You say the Irish weren't allowed to stay in their country. Some were, because there are still Irish in Ireland. Ireland is now an independent country, with only a small colonial presence in Northern Ireland.
I'm not sure how you can say this is comparable to the final results of America's Indian policies. Few Indians still live in their original homelands. None have complete sovereignty over their land without outside interference from another government. Indian nations routinely lose court cases about the right to control their own destiny.
Perhaps you can argue that the historical processes were similar. I don't see how you can argue that the final outcomes were comparable. Whether by square mileage or population, Indian dominions were reduced to a tiny fraction of their original size. Nothing in Irish history compares to that.
In short, you're comparing genocidal policies over 76 years at most (1846-1922) to genocidal policies over 509 years (1492-2001). And a 47% drop in population, caused mainly by emigration, to a 95% or greater drop in population, caused mainly by death. I find the Indian numbers worse in both cases.
You can find fault with my facts—though I don't think you've found a real fault yet. You'll have a hard time disproving my qualitative belief that Indians fared worse than the Irish over the course of their respective histories. I wish you the luck of the Irish proving this belief incorrect. <g>
The debate continues....
>> there appears to be some confusion here between my critiques of the dominant culture and my comments of your characterization of the Irish. <<
>> A later 19th century reference from an author (famous one BTW- possibly Twain) I cannot remember referred to the Irish as "living in holes the ground like savage beasts" <<
Still not a modern reference, of course.
>> I agree, have agreed and will agree with you on this. The drunkeness stereotype for Irish (and Indian) is probably the more harmful stereotype. The Warrior stereotype is an additional insult. <<
I agree that a negative stereotype such as being drunk is generally worse than a neutral stereotype such as being a warrior. But implicit in the Indian opposition to the warrior stereotype is that a warrior is a thinly-disguised savage or barbarian.
Air Force pilots and police officers are "warriors" too, but few teams are named the Pilots or Police. Why not? Because Indians are known for being fierce, ruthless, and deadly warriors, who readily killed with scary tomahawks and knives. They were uncivilized, animalistic "warriors," while pilots and police officers are civilized human beings like you and me.
We barely have any teams named after modern or semi-modern "warriors." Why not the Gunslingers? The Bombardiers? The Prizefighters? The Militiamen? The closest we come to Euro-American warriors are names like the Fighting Irish, Raiders, Pirates, and Vikings, who are generally European rather than American.
And the latter three are all uncivilized in a way, violating the norms of modern society. Where are all the teams named Gladiators (Roman), Crusaders, Knights, or Legionnaires? Oddly, we rarely if ever "honor" these noble, Euro-Christian ancestors of ours. Could it have something to do with our unwillingness to recognize our thuggish, war-drenched history as Caucasians and Christians?
I trust you see my point. We don't want to "honor" our own warlike tendencies, because it isn't much of an honor. We want to honor other people for being warlike while we retain a pristine image of ourselves as 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots, and Titans. That's because we think of ourselves as civilized no matter how many people we kill or let die around the world.
If we want to honor true warriors, here are some proposed names for sports teams: Tailgunners, Paratroopers, Green Berets, SEALs, Marines, GI Joes, and Soldiers. Oddly, all these names are available; none have been used before. How honored do you think the Marines or the Green Berets would be to have some volleyball or badminton team named after them? Would they embrace a bunch of pimply-faced kids with scholarships, cellphones, and SUVs as the embodiment of their traditions and sacrifices?
At least a couple of colleges have changed their names from Crusaders to something else recently, which proves the point. Christians don't want to be associated with the warrior aspect of their history because it stereotypes them negatively. Many Indians feel the same about names like the Fighting Sioux.
Did English believe Swift?
>> If you recall, Swift was an Anglo Irishman and wrote those satires to satirize beliefs about the Irish held by the English. <<
Right. But satire is exaggerated to begin with, and Swift is known for his savage satires. You can't cite his writing that the Irish had tails to claim the English actually believed the Irish had tails. Having tails is an extreme, savage exaggeration of what the English believed.
>> ignorant truly believed these things and similar were true <<
Maybe, but citing Swift doesn't prove the point.
>> I don't think we can take Swift's views as representative. Not without supporting evidence, at least.
See above <<
I saw it. I'd say my response remains valid.
>> Who knows, maybe they did. a la smallpox blankets- they'd done this sort of thing before <<
Maybe, maybe not. But we can't compare a hypothetical to what we actually did to the Indians.
>> The difference between becoming and becoming accepted for what you are (Indians are making strides, though small ones, in the latter) is that you have to give up your culture and ways and pick up those of your oppressors. <<
I still don't think you addressed my point. Regardless of how or why the Irish have become accepted, they have become accepted. We've tried to force Indians to abandon their cultures, and they haven't received the modest compensation of being accepted for it, so they're in a worse position.
>> the Stanford University band's recent abhorrent behavior at the half times of the ND/Stanford games shows that the Irish really may NOT be so accepted by the "elite" of the dominant culture, and what acceptance there is, is acceptance that was forced on the dominant culture. <<
I'm sure there's a lot of racism buried in America's hearts. The vilification of Arab Americans since 9/11 shows how thin our veneer of civility is.
On the other hand, some attacks occur out of ignorance, not malice. I'd guess the band's insults fall into this category. We tend to reserve our deepest antipathy for those brown-skinned people who are "different" from us: blacks, Latinos, Indians, and now Arabs.
>> The people that run the show are extremely jealous of their power and it doesn't take much to release the racist monster when their control (perceived by them as their hereditary birthright) is threatened. <<
Right! Many football teams feel threatened by Notre Dame's prominence—its special TV and licensing deals. ND seems to get special treatment in any football situation.
Yet another response from John
The time scale and technology available were different so it is hard to compare and decide who got screwed worse. Frankly, the Catholic church in Ireland conspired with the Brits in the subjugation of the Irish so that the church's properties were not all destroyed or seized—you might read up on the policy of Cromwell's army regarding the systematic looting destruction and desecration of Catholic churches throughout Britain and Ireland. The courageous thing for the Catholic church would have been to stand or fall with the faithful, but the church, being made of humans, took the easy way out there. As for sterilization, much of the atrocities committed upon the Irish predated most invasive surgery, even on people regarded as less than human, as were the Irish. As for kidnapping Irish children, this was done very much like what was done to the Indian, in order to raise them as good Protestants/White men.
There is no doubt that the breaking of treaties with the indians was unique to the indians. Frankly, the brits didn't respect the Irish sufficiently to ever consider even the veneer of sovereignty in the case of Ireland. Since the feudal lords of the Irish sold the Irish population down the river in return for recognition of their noble status by the Brits the Brits didn't need the subterfuge of treaties. This situation with the Irish lords is not unlike the situation the Feds used and use to this day in recognizing their collaborators as the leaders of many bands and tribes. The subjugation of the Irish was different in many ways from that of the Indian—arguing about who was killed in the most egregious manner is rather silly when one considers that the goal is to return self determination to the people who lost it. This has happened for the Irish, in spite of some Irishmen being its worst enemies. I may be speaking out of turn, but I think this is similarly the case with the Indian nations.
Team names and mascots
Indians in the military
. . .
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.