So for you it's more problematic that they're portrayed sympathetically but not given any sympathy by the characters than if they'd been given a more stereotypical presentation?

I think where we differ is that I see Barks as being completely unsympathetic to Scrooge's action, and even portraying Foola Zoola's revenge as a generally justified response. I agree that the Ducks' lack of sympathy (I read HD&L as serious-faced in the frame under discussion, but agree that they ought to have taken the tribe's side) and the fact that the conclusion of the story seems to regard their fate as irrelevant is problematic (and a bit puzzling), but I think that's more a consequence of trying to adhere somewhat clumsily to an adventure-story formula than any sense that what Scrooge did was justified or not any big deal.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the abuses of strikers by thugs were ever exactly glamorized. It wasn't exactly hushed up; people knew about it, but I don't think there were many examples of people trumpeting the noble robber baron's cause, unless, of course, the baron had paid them to do so. I wouldn't think that popular culture was ever really on the robber barons' SIDE - otherwise, why would they call them that?

I think you misunderstand me. My point was exactly that similar abuses were not unknown in the US, and that the robber barons were vilified for them. So I don't think it would be such a great leap of imagination for Barks to put himself in the tribe's shoes and recognize it for what it was.

You read the story as Barks tacitly accepting Scrooge's actions, maybe not as likable, but as acceptable behavior. I don't.