Actor Herbert Mundin, playing Munch in the 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood (starring Errol Flynn) is charged by Prince John's troops of slaying a royal deer in the royal Sherwood forest. The punishment is death. Though the events of this film are a portrayal of events dating to the 15th century, they became by the 19th century a "robbing from the rich for the poor" theme so often depicted in other film genres. The William Tell legend is another. The plot is simple. A poor man desperate to survive tastes the forbidden fruits owned by the authority, and is condemned.
I would love to hear this event debated on the current TV news shows. On the one hand, Munch would be a champion in service to his family. On the other hand, his legal rights are restricted by legal authority. so, the argument would proceed. Legal scholars cite statutes chapter and verse, while others would root for the common man.
Fast forward to 2014.
Parallels between the poor Munch and (the not so poor) Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada seem clear, though details are somewhat askew. Bundy is accused of not paying grazing fees and removing his cattle from government range as ordered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Moreover, his claims for redress have been rejected three times in the courts. (Munch would have lost as well.) Yet, the courts are agents of the government through statute and case law. Are they not? Bundy claims historical precedent and common justice. This unmistakable parallel is not perfect - but close enough for a mention.
What we see is clear. Those still believing in the Robin Hood concept, champion of the peasants, the oppressed, and the poor clearly favor Bundy in his lone struggle with neighbors to avoid the intrusion by big government upon his ancient rights. On the flip side, those supporting authority, in this case the government, demand Bundy cease and desist, pay his grazing debts, and obey the law. At this writing, we see no Robin Hood to lead support for the rights of Bundy. Ah, context...
The reason why the legend of Robin Hood is still a grand tale is that the poor and oppressed successfully rejected abject and insensitive authority. It it were an everyday event, Robin would have been forgotten centuries ago.
Remarkably, even many of those in government or not believe in the Robin Hood myth just so long as it applies to their preferred issue(s).
I would love to hear this event debated on the current TV news shows. On the one hand, Munch would be a champion in service to his family. On the other hand, his legal rights are restricted by legal authority. so, the argument would proceed. Legal scholars cite statutes chapter and verse, while others would root for the common man.
Fast forward to 2014.
Parallels between the poor Munch and (the not so poor) Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada seem clear, though details are somewhat askew. Bundy is accused of not paying grazing fees and removing his cattle from government range as ordered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Moreover, his claims for redress have been rejected three times in the courts. (Munch would have lost as well.) Yet, the courts are agents of the government through statute and case law. Are they not? Bundy claims historical precedent and common justice. This unmistakable parallel is not perfect - but close enough for a mention.
What we see is clear. Those still believing in the Robin Hood concept, champion of the peasants, the oppressed, and the poor clearly favor Bundy in his lone struggle with neighbors to avoid the intrusion by big government upon his ancient rights. On the flip side, those supporting authority, in this case the government, demand Bundy cease and desist, pay his grazing debts, and obey the law. At this writing, we see no Robin Hood to lead support for the rights of Bundy. Ah, context...
The reason why the legend of Robin Hood is still a grand tale is that the poor and oppressed successfully rejected abject and insensitive authority. It it were an everyday event, Robin would have been forgotten centuries ago.
Remarkably, even many of those in government or not believe in the Robin Hood myth just so long as it applies to their preferred issue(s).
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.