People with a legal degree usually assume they are an expert on everything. Mark Levin, on his radio show, opined that Robin Hood was somehow Marxist, as he (as Levin saw it) took from the rich and gave to the poor. Levin seems unaware of British political history, and took no note of the context of the myth.
The villains in Robin Hood are the landed gentry, the Church and the Sheriff of Nottingham. In the story, they are responsible for living high of the hog while the common people lived in poverty.
In eighteenth century Britain, Tories were the defenders of the landed gentry, the Church of England, and were known for calling the emerging commercial class thieves. The respectable way for people to be wealthy was the ownership of large amounts of land; this, of course, was not open to the vast majority of Britons. To the consternation of this commercial class, the Tory intelligentsia ( Jonathan Swift et al) considered traders and artisans thieves and riff-raff.
Mr. Levin's theory that Robin Hood is Marxist ignores the opproprium that Torys attached to commercial life, and seems to ignore the fact that landed gentry are not necessarily the equivalent to rich Americans. Rich Americans have no genealogical entitlement to their wealth. Being born poor does not mean staying poor in America. Becoming a businessman never meant being treated like a criminal (except on MSNBC!). Thus, unlike eighteenth century Britons, we would not see despoiling rich people as tit for tat the way Whigs did at that time. So, unless Mr. Levin is among those who see eighteenth century Whigs as the predecessors of Karl Marx ( and there are, admittedly, such people) he should recognize Robin Hood as a fantasy for commercial people sick of being treated like criminals for their efforts.
The villains in Robin Hood are the landed gentry, the Church and the Sheriff of Nottingham. In the story, they are responsible for living high of the hog while the common people lived in poverty.
In eighteenth century Britain, Tories were the defenders of the landed gentry, the Church of England, and were known for calling the emerging commercial class thieves. The respectable way for people to be wealthy was the ownership of large amounts of land; this, of course, was not open to the vast majority of Britons. To the consternation of this commercial class, the Tory intelligentsia ( Jonathan Swift et al) considered traders and artisans thieves and riff-raff.
Mr. Levin's theory that Robin Hood is Marxist ignores the opproprium that Torys attached to commercial life, and seems to ignore the fact that landed gentry are not necessarily the equivalent to rich Americans. Rich Americans have no genealogical entitlement to their wealth. Being born poor does not mean staying poor in America. Becoming a businessman never meant being treated like a criminal (except on MSNBC!). Thus, unlike eighteenth century Britons, we would not see despoiling rich people as tit for tat the way Whigs did at that time. So, unless Mr. Levin is among those who see eighteenth century Whigs as the predecessors of Karl Marx ( and there are, admittedly, such people) he should recognize Robin Hood as a fantasy for commercial people sick of being treated like criminals for their efforts.
