good god even among non leftist spaces the general message of robin hood is agreed to be "You take from the rich and give to the poor", how the fuck do you arrive at the point he's just opposed to nobility and clergy
When people have no historical understanding of the transition from feudal monarchies to the democratic state and liberal capitalism. When monarchies started getting dissolved and governments democratized, aristocrats and royalty-adjacent people were at severe risk of losing their position in society, and sought to find a new way to preserve their status. The people of feudal aristocracy who formulated this movement were literally the origin point of "conservatism", as in conservation of the aristocratic hierarchies within a society that was transitioning out of its previous basis for those structures. When they no longer had the appeal to autocratic leadership to substantiate their high placement in social hierarchy, they moved to the next best thing, which was money, profit, and private property as vehicles to wield influence over people lower in the social strata.
When you understand all that, Robin Hood works just fine as a character of anti-capitalist, or at least capitalism-critical, sentiment, because the same power structures that the rich and powerful used in feudal times were laundered into the capitalist framework via the profit motive and private property.
I genuinely believe that a lot of liberals just don't have a connection between vast property ownership and the nefarious amounts of influence that gives a person in society. Like, they see a Bezos or a Gates hoarding ludicrous amounts of land and only regard it as an investment vehicle scaled to massive wealth earned elsewhere, to preserve their wealth on that very individualistic level. They don't have the framework to connect the sheer mass of perpetual wealth that such land ownership entails and the amount of power a person holds over society because of it.
Most liberals see property ownership as "having a private home and maybe a few acres of real estate with a vacation house upstate" rather than "owning half the arable land in Iowa" or "controlling the nation's largest aquifer".
It's very much an out of sight, out of mind perspective.
A lot of versions/interpretations center Robin as being a supporter of King Richard the Lionheart. In this framework: robbing from the rich and giving to the poor was not entirely pure altruism and rejection of nobility, but more a rejection/rebellion of Prince John's specific authority and moral leadership.
Just watched Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) in which Kevin Costner returns from the Gulf War with Morgan Freeman, his Arab translator, and exacts revenge on the tax-loving, gun-confiscating Alan Rickman who tried to take over while he (Costner) was away
Lol, you should check out Robin Hood (2018) with Taron Edgerton. They actually went the complete flipside on the politics...which would be good but man oh man are they on the nose.
Robinhood existed in nascent capitalism. A few social changes started in the 13th century that paved the way for capitalism: plunder of the arab world, inclosure, and mass criminalization of the populace.
At multiple points Robinhood saves his comrades from the gallows or vice versa, and he's portrayed as living in a deer park. Deer parks were inclosed peasant commons reserved for the aristocracy to hunt on. This means that two of the institutions robinhood opposed (inclosure and mass criminalization) were nascent capitalist institutions.
Robinhood was an anti capitalist.
Well, except for the part where he fought in the crusades. That wasn't great, but at least he used that military service to kill the sherif of Nottingham.
The 13th century crusades were an attemp by Catholics from Europe to conquer Jerusalem for the church. The Roman, viking and norman invasions of England had already happened.
The 13th century crusades were an attemp by Catholics from Europe to conquer Jerusalem for the church.
As part of a broader turf war between "Christian" kingdoms of Europe and the "Moorish" kingdoms of the Middle East for land in and around the Mediterranean. The fixation on Jerusalem was ideological, but since you needed to occupy the Mediterranean coastline to manage it, the fight had a great deal of material economic consequence. The English crusading down south just so happened to also have a vested interest in sailing past the Iberian Peninsula without getting picked off by Barbary Pirates.
Barbary Pirates - aligned with the various Muslim occupiers of southern Europe - were harassing and enslaving English sailors as early as the 1500s. Raids through the Iberian peninsula were happening as far back as the 710s.
good god even among non leftist spaces the general message of robin hood is agreed to be "You take from the rich and give to the poor", how the fuck do you arrive at the point he's just opposed to nobility and clergy
Robin Hood famously loved the free enterprise and the Chicago school
When people have no historical understanding of the transition from feudal monarchies to the democratic state and liberal capitalism. When monarchies started getting dissolved and governments democratized, aristocrats and royalty-adjacent people were at severe risk of losing their position in society, and sought to find a new way to preserve their status. The people of feudal aristocracy who formulated this movement were literally the origin point of "conservatism", as in conservation of the aristocratic hierarchies within a society that was transitioning out of its previous basis for those structures. When they no longer had the appeal to autocratic leadership to substantiate their high placement in social hierarchy, they moved to the next best thing, which was money, profit, and private property as vehicles to wield influence over people lower in the social strata.
When you understand all that, Robin Hood works just fine as a character of anti-capitalist, or at least capitalism-critical, sentiment, because the same power structures that the rich and powerful used in feudal times were laundered into the capitalist framework via the profit motive and private property.
deleted by creator
I genuinely believe that a lot of liberals just don't have a connection between vast property ownership and the nefarious amounts of influence that gives a person in society. Like, they see a Bezos or a Gates hoarding ludicrous amounts of land and only regard it as an investment vehicle scaled to massive wealth earned elsewhere, to preserve their wealth on that very individualistic level. They don't have the framework to connect the sheer mass of perpetual wealth that such land ownership entails and the amount of power a person holds over society because of it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Most liberals see property ownership as "having a private home and maybe a few acres of real estate with a vacation house upstate" rather than "owning half the arable land in Iowa" or "controlling the nation's largest aquifer".
It's very much an out of sight, out of mind perspective.
A lot of versions/interpretations center Robin as being a supporter of King Richard the Lionheart. In this framework: robbing from the rich and giving to the poor was not entirely pure altruism and rejection of nobility, but more a rejection/rebellion of Prince John's specific authority and moral leadership.
Eitherway: its pretty fucking pedantic.
Just watched Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) in which Kevin Costner returns from the Gulf War with Morgan Freeman, his Arab translator, and exacts revenge on the tax-loving, gun-confiscating Alan Rickman who tried to take over while he (Costner) was away
Lol, you should check out Robin Hood (2018) with Taron Edgerton. They actually went the complete flipside on the politics...which would be good but man oh man are they on the nose.
Robinhood existed in nascent capitalism. A few social changes started in the 13th century that paved the way for capitalism: plunder of the arab world, inclosure, and mass criminalization of the populace.
At multiple points Robinhood saves his comrades from the gallows or vice versa, and he's portrayed as living in a deer park. Deer parks were inclosed peasant commons reserved for the aristocracy to hunt on. This means that two of the institutions robinhood opposed (inclosure and mass criminalization) were nascent capitalist institutions.
Robinhood was an anti capitalist.
Well, except for the part where he fought in the crusades. That wasn't great, but at least he used that military service to kill the sherif of Nottingham.
One could argue that defending your turf from colonization by an outside force is also anti-capitalist.
The 13th century crusades were an attemp by Catholics from Europe to conquer Jerusalem for the church. The Roman, viking and norman invasions of England had already happened.
As part of a broader turf war between "Christian" kingdoms of Europe and the "Moorish" kingdoms of the Middle East for land in and around the Mediterranean. The fixation on Jerusalem was ideological, but since you needed to occupy the Mediterranean coastline to manage it, the fight had a great deal of material economic consequence. The English crusading down south just so happened to also have a vested interest in sailing past the Iberian Peninsula without getting picked off by Barbary Pirates.
At what point was England under threat in the crusades?
Barbary Pirates - aligned with the various Muslim occupiers of southern Europe - were harassing and enslaving English sailors as early as the 1500s. Raids through the Iberian peninsula were happening as far back as the 710s.
Huh, didn't know that, that would have been cooler than him fighting as a cavelryman in the middle east.
Because that's what Hollywood told me in the latest remake and they've never lied to me before.