I’ll never understand it but the story of Robin Hood always bored the hell out of me. I am not sure why. However, although he was a thief who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, at the end of the day, he still took stuff that was not rightfully his and was still a thief. If you stop and think long and hard about this, Bonnie and Clyde (yes the murdering outlaws) often did the same thing–and I think they were kept well hidden because of that fact by people in various towns until they were gunned down.
Now what’s the point? It’s this (and I’ll try to make it very simple). For a while the people will love and admire such a person–until it begins to affect everyone and everything around them. Then there is a demand for justice.
Now there are several versions of the Robin Hood tale–one most looked at says he was taking and giving back to the people what was “theirs”…Gee…Did whoever wrote Robin Hood create the concept of “redistributing wealth”? If this is about perception, then different eras are going to read the story different ways. In any reality, there is no way the number of poor were rightful owners of what he stole…How would he know what belonged to whom? Seriously, if you want to get in a conversation starting a philosophical world of s**t, start with this!
The bottom line though is this–Robin Hood was STILL a thief himself. There! I’m through being so bloody cranky today!