[Mikolaj]

background Info

Well, was he a anti-colonialist folk hero or a menece to law and order?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Both.

[Mikolaj]

How so

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well, because he was anti-British and a folk hero and he menaced the police?

[Mikolaj]

Are you trying to kill this thread

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well, if by giving you a definitive and succinct answer kills off the thread, then yes.

The simple fact is that being a folk hero and a menace to law and order are not mutually exclusive, and Ned Kelly was both.

[Mikolaj]

I was hoping for pages of responses, like the John Brown thread. How is this different?

[Maxim Litvinov]

John Brown isn't Ned Kelly?

[Mikolaj]

Yes, but both had a dual nature, so I would imagine more posts.

How well-known is he in Australia?

[Maxim Litvinov]

I haven't met him personally, but everyone's heard of him!

Everyone knows he looks like this guy:

[Drew]

Who names their horse Music? I'm gonna go off and name my dog "Spatular"

[Smilin' Dave]

Saying Ned Kelly is a hero or villain suggests that he is significant. In my opinion he wasn't particularly important either way. He was a crook and maybe held some political views.

Perhaps Ned Kelly is a key figure in social mythology, but then at that point it doesn't matter what he really did or represented anyway.

[Thunderhawk]

Menace to law and order.
Menaced by law and order.


From what I read, the only people he killed were police officers. That doesnt excuse his actions, but it does mitigate his "evilness" a tad.

Other then continued existance and some brave acts to defend his family, he did nothing to make him a hero.


Legend - yes.
Rebel - yes.
Folk hero - no.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't agree. He campaigned against the corruption of the authorities and for independence from the British.

People aren't 'folk heroes' depending on whether you think they did great stuff, but on whether folk regard them as a hero. And many people regard Kelly's actions as heroic and him as a people's martyr in some senses (rightly or wrongly).

As Wikipedia says: "Edward "Ned" Kelly (c. 1855 – 11 November 1880) is Australia's most famous bushranger, and, to many, a folk hero for his defiance of the colonial authorities."

[Smilin' Dave]

But those who consider Ned Kelly a folk hero probably could't tell you about his social and political activism. After all Ned Kelly was still popular when Australia was still largely pro-British.

He might be a folk hero by invention, but that isn't really history.

[Maxim Litvinov]

He might be a folk hero by invention, but that isn't really history.

Folk heroism is often not history - people like Robin Hood and King Arthur are English folk heroes, while it's sketchy whether they even existed in any meaningful way.

After all Ned Kelly was still popular when Australia was still largely pro-British.

Hmm. I don't really buy this 'pro-British' line. Our leaders were just about always pro-British, at least until you started to get Catholic Labor MPs in power, but there has also been a distinct popular movement against British law and order right from the days of convicts, through the masses of Catholic Irish settlers, the Eureka movement, the conscription debate with Mannix and even the Catholic schools debate... Ned Kelly has always been thought to represent this mass of the population to some extent, but to also represent those many more Australians who possess a fairly strong contempt for authority, British or otherwise.

[Smilin' Dave]

Hmm. I don't really buy this 'pro-British' line. Our leaders were just about always pro-British, at least until you started to get Catholic Labor MPs in power, but there has also been a distinct popular movement against British law and order right from the days of convicts, through the masses of Catholic Irish settlers, the Eureka movement, the conscription debate with Mannix and even the Catholic schools debate...

While anti-British sentiment represents a significant minority in Australian history I think to suggest that our pro-British stance was simply the result of a ruling class is a bit misleading.

Anyhow, point taken.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well, it wasn't 'simply' the result of a ruling class, but the Anglo-English mob have traditionally been Australia's ruling class. This is not to say that a lot of Australians of British background weren't themselves anti-ruling class (without being 'anti-themselves), but just that our labour movement and the sort of opposition that Ned Kelly 'stood for' was part of a long and rich vein in our history of anti-authority sentiment, generally focussed around Irish Catholics.

Kindof curious that these days politicians rail about Australian migrants bringing their antagonisms and culture with them, and talk about how when you come to Australia you have to fit in etc. etc. - in truth our nation was founded on a lot of antagonisms between Catholic and Protestant, Irish and English which involved deep-seated and long-running animosities. Right until the 1960s or so there were still strong elements of this division even in everyday society, to the point that 'mixed marriage' tends to mean 'inter-faith (Catholic/Protestant) marriage' for most people who grew up before the 60s.

Anyhow, it's just fun talking about Aussie history for a change because I don't really know much of it or talk much of it.

[Thunderhawk]

He campaigned against the corruption of the authorities

How did he campaign against them ?
His violent acts did not change anything, nor were they in support of a reform movement.

and for independence from the British.

Oh ?

The article says he had a pamplet. He could have been the most ardent Republican Australia has ever had, but he did little to support the movement himself.






The myth of Ned Kelly could be a folk hero.
Ned Kelly as history describes him, is not.

[Maxim Litvinov]

How did he campaign against them ?
His violent acts did not change anything, nor were they in support of a reform movement.

Read the Jerilderie letter. Then read a biography of Kelly. And then report back.