I do not think that the Houyhnhnms' oppression of the Yahoos was totally unjustified. I believe, as in any situation of this kind, that the responsibility falls on both parties, even when it appears that the less powerful race was taken by force.

I hesitate to label the Houyhnhnms "rational" and the Yahoos "irrational" or "non-rational", as these are subjective terms. Certainly, the Houyhnhnms are arrogant. In their opinion, they were the epitome of perfection before Gulliver ever arrived on the scene. The Houyhnhnms therefore use their own physical and mental capabilities as the standard against which everything must be measured. They observe Gulliver's physical characteristics (his hands, feet, body hair), and,upon finding them similar enough to that of a Yahoo, label him a Yahoo. The biggest difference that they note between Gulliver and the Yahoos is his ability to put his small ability of reason to good use, but even this is not enough to sway the horses' opinions (even though Gulliver swears there is no such concept there).

The Houyhnhnms decide that Yahoos in general have an inferior intellect because they do not use their ability to reason in the same way as they do. Because of their feelings of superiority (and certainly, in some ways they are superior, but not in all ways), the Houyhnhnms are not interested in the possibility that the differences they encounter in the Yahoos could actually have some redeeming value. From what the Houyhnhnms know of life, their way works the best.

I think the Houyhnhnms' whole methodology is flawed. In my opinion, the Houyhnhnms are the ones who have misused their ability to reason.

Instead of respecting the differences between the races, the Houyhnhnms instead choose to enslave the Yahoos, all the while claiming that it's for their own good. They even go so far as to state that their exploitation of the Yahoos is justified because unless they are kept busy with menial work, the Yahoos tend to lie all day in their stalls depressed. While this line of reasoning may be true for some of the Yahoos, it can't be true for all of them.

Although the Houyhnhnms are supposed to be capable of great intelligence, they are unable to make sense out of Gulliver because he contradicts everything they have come to expect in human form. Their arrogance comes into play here because even thought they have encountered a glaring exception to the rule, the Houyhnhnms can't admit their mistake. They do understand, however, that Gulliver's prolonged presence there could eventually upset the balance of power, even if Gulliver does nothing himself to provoke it, and so they have to get Gulliver out of the country. To their credit, the Houyhnhnms do ask Gulliver to leave instead of killing or enslaving him.

In sharp contrast to the Houyhnhnms' perspective, Gulliver is respectful of every culture that he encounters in his voyages. Even the Lilliputians, who Gulliver could have literally squashed, were treated with deference. In this respect, Gulliver exemplifies what the philosophes' definition of reason was, what it meant to be a "citizen of the world" during the Enlightenment; he is a diplomat and a student, not a conqueror. In Swift's opinion (and my own), this is how people (and other creatures) should behave toward one another. It should not be assumed that other cultures are inferior simply because they are different. Just because a society may be less advanced in some ways is no excuse for enslavement. Just as equally, when a more advanced society is encountered, it should not be assumed that it is superior. These things should not be taken lightly by everyone involved, otherwise serious consequences can and do result.

Where the Yahoos went wrong was that although their numbers were great and their brute strength enormous, they allowed their emotions to take over in the faces of the cool, calculating Houyhnhnms. The fact that some of the Yahoos gave into depression and laid about in their stalls only added fuel to the fire. I am reminded of the concentration camps during the Holocaust, and how the sheer numbers of people who were taken to the camps could have totally upset the balance of power, but they didn't. There was a small group of people who worked tirelessly for freedom and who were not afraid, but again, the majority of the people who were taken to the camps did nothing. This inaction gave the Germans more power, who were clearly outnumbered but not outsmarted.

As far as the Irish were concerned, I do not know the whole story. I do know that the whole thing came to a head at the Battle of the Boyne, where the Irish were finally defeated by the British. Whether the image of the drunken, lazy Irishman is accurate or just another generalization, it must have been based on someone that existed at some point. It's the same story that you hear about the American Indians, who were (and some claim they still are) oppressed by the Americans. About ten years ago, I worked with a descendent of the Chippewa tribe, who looked down on her own people who sat around all day feeling sorry for themselves. I heard it from her own mouth that getting drunk and taking drugs everyday was "the Indian way of life," but it was not hers. When she left Minnesota, there was no going back.

There is, therefore, a vast difference between oppression and discipline, two concepts that can look exactly the same on the surface. There is likewise a vast difference between knuckling under and being taken by force. Choices are made on both sides of every issue, but I know that if it were me, I would rather die fighting like the Jews did at Masada rather than be taken into captivity like the Jews were during the Holocaust, and because of that, I think the Yahoos deserved some of what they got.