Ned Kelly, Michael Moore, and James Connolly
Wow - 8 days since I last blogged. Attend one of the most intense graduate programs I could find AND buy my first house, What Was I Thinking!!!!! I felt more than caught up with courses last week - one weekend of moving and now I feel like I'm just treading water. Ok - I'll get back in front of the tide soon - probably by this weekend... In fact, I might have been there tonight if not for the by now notorious Ned Kelly assignment. More on that in a moment.
Funny - everyone is talking about Slackers today - amazing the influence that Michael Moore has on American (or the American media anyway). Gary assigns the Ned Kelly topic, then he posts the link to Michael Moore's slacker tour, later I hear a segment on All Things Considered regarding Michael Moore's tour. During that segment someone (a politician... not sure which one... should look that up) called Moore a "Socialist" and then "asked" why Moore doesn't just go live in France. What the F***???? Who ever said that only capitalists are welcome in this country? While we're at it, why is the misconception that Socialism and Democracy are on opposite ends of some political (ideological) spectrum still so prevalent. Did our leaders learn nothing in Social Studies class (or Economics for that matter) - do they know they are perpetuating a faulty comparison? My cynical opinion is that they do and they do it on purpose - shame on "us" for not recognizing it. Democracy and Socialism are not diametrically opposed, socialist democracies (and democratic socialism) are possible. I wonder why I reacted so strongly? Because I've been thinking about James Connolly all day? Which brings me almost full circle, back to Ned Kelly because for some reason when I initially discovered the Ned Kelly assignment my brain immediately thought of James Connolly. I'm still not sure why I made that seemingly unfounded connection - yeah, their both Irish (or of Irish descent) - but one was a revolutionary, a crusader for the "common man" (the proletariat), and eventually a martyr. The other - well he was a criminal whose legend benefited from the historical and social context. This brings up an interesting question - how much are our heroes and villains defined by the historical/social context and how much by their own personal qualities. Are the two always mutually dependent?
Then again - maybe I'm not so far a field w/ my connection between Ned and James. In the mid-late 1800's, the Anglo-Irish tension was certainly present in Australia. Ned felt his family were being persecuted (others felt that way, judging by legendary status his life and death now hold). They were Irish and they were persecuted by the English authorities... (or authorities that represented England). Perhaps he is a "hero" because of that. Perhaps he is a hero because when the final moment came, when he was critically wounded and had already watched Joe Byrne die, he chose not to run, he chose not to give up, he chose to go back for his brother and other gang member. To many, this courage might very well seem heroic. I know kids who view heroes as those who "have your back." Heroes are those who don't give up, no matter the odds, no matter the outcome - "...to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." Was Ned a hero? Perhaps not by my standards, but maybe by another's. He is certainly a legend and that legend has certainly brought prosperity to many - maybe more prosperity than what he stole when he was a criminal. One final thing to remember, history is written by the victors. The authorities branded his whole family criminals (that is in fact why his father was sent to Australia in the first place) and, possibly in an effort to keep his family together, lived up to that brand.
Now - here is a very telling quote from a 1911 publication:
" Time may be when these names will be canonised in the heart of Australian boyhood. For the English people dearly love a bold and successful robber, have he anything of chivalry or courtesy about him. " Click Here for the full story.
I think there was more I intended to reflect on, but it is nearly 12:30 am and I'm tired tonight.
Funny - everyone is talking about Slackers today - amazing the influence that Michael Moore has on American (or the American media anyway). Gary assigns the Ned Kelly topic, then he posts the link to Michael Moore's slacker tour, later I hear a segment on All Things Considered regarding Michael Moore's tour. During that segment someone (a politician... not sure which one... should look that up) called Moore a "Socialist" and then "asked" why Moore doesn't just go live in France. What the F***???? Who ever said that only capitalists are welcome in this country? While we're at it, why is the misconception that Socialism and Democracy are on opposite ends of some political (ideological) spectrum still so prevalent. Did our leaders learn nothing in Social Studies class (or Economics for that matter) - do they know they are perpetuating a faulty comparison? My cynical opinion is that they do and they do it on purpose - shame on "us" for not recognizing it. Democracy and Socialism are not diametrically opposed, socialist democracies (and democratic socialism) are possible. I wonder why I reacted so strongly? Because I've been thinking about James Connolly all day? Which brings me almost full circle, back to Ned Kelly because for some reason when I initially discovered the Ned Kelly assignment my brain immediately thought of James Connolly. I'm still not sure why I made that seemingly unfounded connection - yeah, their both Irish (or of Irish descent) - but one was a revolutionary, a crusader for the "common man" (the proletariat), and eventually a martyr. The other - well he was a criminal whose legend benefited from the historical and social context. This brings up an interesting question - how much are our heroes and villains defined by the historical/social context and how much by their own personal qualities. Are the two always mutually dependent?
Then again - maybe I'm not so far a field w/ my connection between Ned and James. In the mid-late 1800's, the Anglo-Irish tension was certainly present in Australia. Ned felt his family were being persecuted (others felt that way, judging by legendary status his life and death now hold). They were Irish and they were persecuted by the English authorities... (or authorities that represented England). Perhaps he is a "hero" because of that. Perhaps he is a hero because when the final moment came, when he was critically wounded and had already watched Joe Byrne die, he chose not to run, he chose not to give up, he chose to go back for his brother and other gang member. To many, this courage might very well seem heroic. I know kids who view heroes as those who "have your back." Heroes are those who don't give up, no matter the odds, no matter the outcome - "...to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." Was Ned a hero? Perhaps not by my standards, but maybe by another's. He is certainly a legend and that legend has certainly brought prosperity to many - maybe more prosperity than what he stole when he was a criminal. One final thing to remember, history is written by the victors. The authorities branded his whole family criminals (that is in fact why his father was sent to Australia in the first place) and, possibly in an effort to keep his family together, lived up to that brand.
Now - here is a very telling quote from a 1911 publication:
" Time may be when these names will be canonised in the heart of Australian boyhood. For the English people dearly love a bold and successful robber, have he anything of chivalry or courtesy about him. " Click Here for the full story.
I think there was more I intended to reflect on, but it is nearly 12:30 am and I'm tired tonight.
posted by susan | 10:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home