Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot View Post
You're making unfair generalizations. Not every chief betrayed their clansmen, although I'm not denying some did. And as a historian, one of the first rules I learned was not to judge either people in the past by modern standards, or modern-day persons because of the actions of their ancestors.

And as far as Irish Chiefs go, well, that's a bit of a "sticky wicket" after the MacCarthy Mor Hoax back in the late '90s:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/

Todd
I agree, some didn't betray their folk. That's why I said more or less. But I'm not judging them by modern standards either. Those in the past who betrayed their clan turned their back on a centuries-old system. I suspect in their day they were judged quite harshly by their clansmen. Later, once their responsibilities were gone, they festooned themselves in Highland finery, concocted some romantic fantasies, and almost mocked the system they themselves had in hand in destroying.

As for the modern chiefs, it's the hereditary office I dislike, not the individuals themselves. They certainly can't be judged by the actions of their ancestors anymore than the rest of us could. I just think elected chiefs would be closer to the original system of Tanistry.

As for Irish chiefs, well, I think you'll find there is little regard for them among many in Ireland.