of Selkirk Forest.rnBy then Wallace had beeome thern”king’s enemv ” and would be offered nornpardon. Stirling Bridge had stung Edward’srnpride, and he was determined tornhave his way with the upstart Scotsman.rnAccording to his biographers, Wallacerncould have come into the king’s peace afterrnFalkirk; however, he refused to forsakernthe struggle for Scotland’s independence.rnIn 1304 his allies—Comyn, bishopsrnWishart and Lamberton, James thernSteward—one bv one, came to Perth tornsubmit to the English king. The spark ofrnresistance among the Scots was temporarilvrnextinguished. Wallace had nornhope of raising another army, nor had hernhope of escape. He was sacrificed to thernking’s peace; not a single Scotsman ofrnnote spoke up to defend him. But withinrnsix months after Wallace’s betrayal byrnGraham of Menteith and his subsequentrndrawing-and-c[uartering at Smithfieldrn(London) in August 1305, Bruce wouldrnkill John Comyn in Dumfries Cathedral,rnseize the crown of Scotland, and set off arnchain of c ents that culminated in gloriousrnictorv over Edward II at Bannockburnrnin 1514.rnCeltic peoples, whether in I3th-centurvrnScotland or in the 19th-centuryrnAmerican South, have been targets forrnsubjugation and extermination. OurrnCeltic ancestors’ refusal to surrender tornthe tvrann’ of a Longshanks or a Lincoln,rndespite overwhelming odds, enragedrntheir tormentors and brought ruinrnon Scotland and the South. In the facesrnof Wallace’s intrepid Celtic fighters onerncan recognize, across time and space, thernsame grim determination that movedrnthe men in gray to follow brave Armisteadrnat Gettysburg or impetuous Hoodrnat bloody Franklin. They, too, like Wallacernand his men, ultimately failed, butrnthe inspiration we draw from theirrncourage and sacrifice in the face of insurmountablerndifficulties is inestimable.rnAnd perhaps this legacy is why Celtsrnha’e refused to present themselves as arngovernment-protected “victim” group.rnIt is significant that Vlel Gibson has chosenrnto emphasize not the sufferings ofrnthe Scots but their heroic resistance torntyranny.rnMichael Hill is a historian, presidentrnof The Southern League, and author ofrnFire & Sword: Sorlev Boy MacDonnellrnand the Rise of Clan Ian Mor, 1538-90rn(The Aegis Press).rnMad Scots andrnIndiansrnby Marian Kester CoombsrnIt would be easy to view the recentrnspate of movies and documentariesrnthat side with Amerindians against thernwhite man as no more than a longdelavedrnsurge of racial revenge, and ofrncourse that emotion is openly expressedrnin all of them. I refer to the cycle, begunrnby Dances with Wolves, that includesrnHollywood’s Geronimo as well as the DiscoveryrnChannel’s documentary seriesrnHow the West Was Lost, the Arts & Entertainment’srnseries The Real West, thernTurner Network Television productionsrnI’he Native Americans, Geronimo, ThernBroken Ghain, Lakota Woman: Siege atrnWounded Knee, Tecumseh: The Last Warrior,rnand Michael Mann’s 1992 remakernof The Last of the Mohicans. If we confinernour view to the revisionist “NativernAmerican” epics, the denunciation ofrnaggressive, imperialist white Americanrnculture is virtually all that is noticeable;rnbroaden the view, however, to includernthe revisionist Scottish-nationalist sagasrnRoil Roy and Braveheart, and a differentrnmessage is revealed.rnThe two most recent epics—MelrnGibson’s Braveheart and Turner’s Tecumsehrn—are so similarly plotted as to be thernsame movie set five centuries and anrnocean apart. (In particular, the scenes ofrnthe clans/tribes reveling in the night byrntorchlight bring home how very muchrnlike “redskins” our European ancestorsrnlived, well into the Christian era.)rnWilliam Wallace’s father is butchered inrnbattle by his hereditary enemies, the English,rnin the 13th century, and the grie-rning boy sees his body laid out, thenrninterred. Ever afterward, William is visitedrnby his father (and later his murderedrnwife Marion) in inspirational dreams.rnTecumseh’s father is killed in battlernby his hereditary enemies, the whitesrn(perhaps bv William Henry Harrisonrnhimself), in the 18th century, an eventrnTecumseh sees in a premonitory dream,rnand the body is sorrowfully returned andrninterred.rnBoth heroes are prone to dreaming,rnwhich signifies their reliance on preconscious,rn”irrational” ways of knowing, butrnwhile Wallace’s dreams are consciencelikerngoads that keep him true to his quarrelrnwith the English, Tecumseh’s (likernGeronimo’s) often serve as practicalrnguides from the spirit world to what isrnfated to happen or what to do next. AsrnJulian Jaynes observed in The Origin ofrnConsciousness in the Breakdown of the BicameralrnMind, once modern subjectivernconsciousness evolved, only severe crisesrncould again call forth in certain susceptiblernindividuals the inner voice of thern”gods,” or “spirit possession,” such as isrnfound so serenely and routinely dictatingrnthe heroes’ acts in an archaic trance-epicrnlike The Iliad.rnWallace and Tecumseh are both reviledrnby their civilized contemporaries asrnwild men, sauvages who exist in a (free)rnstate of nature. Yet each startles his opponentsrnwith sophistication: Tecumsehrnknows English and has been taught tornread and write, while Wallace’s UnclernArgyll has had him made literate in English,rnFrench, and Latin. But their corernunity is each man’s obsession with hisrnpeople and its traditional way of life,rnwhich is seen, simply, as freedom. Inrnpassionate speeches to the enemy as wellrnas to sellouts among their own kind,rnWallace and Tecumseh declare that anyrnsuffering endured under conditions ofrnfreedom is preferable to the most seductivernprosperity and security granted byrngiving up the struggle: “We starve, butrnwe are still free.” “No surrender!” is thernwar cry of both. Wallace strives to resolvernthe warring clans into a unitedrnstrike force, just as Tecumseh belatedlyrnsees the need for the warring tribes tornjoin together in driving out the whites.rnThe parallel “sellouts” are those Scottishrnnobles and native chiefs who bargainrnaway the people’s birthright and landrnwhile enriching themselves. The parallelrnenemy is seen torching humble villagesrnand harassing women and children. Hernis above all treacherous, sure to breakrnwhatever parole or treaty he coerces orrncajoles clan or tribe into signing; unboundedrnin arrogance and imperial rapacity;rnbut of course so superior in number,rnmounts, and weaponry that onlyrnlightning raids and daring ambushesrnavail against him. The betrayal and routrnof Wallace and his men at Falkirk resemblesrnthe tribes’ entrapment and betrayalrnat Fallen Timbers. The scenes of bluedaubed,rnkilt-swathed Scottish Highlandersrncharging massed English horsernwith bloodcurdling yells correspondrnframe for frame to the warpainted,rnbreechclouted, screeching Shawneesrncharging the bluecoat cavalry.rnIn the end, Wallace is seized and willrnnot beg the King for a merciful death, sornNOVEMBER 1995/47rnrnrn