On Jérôme Kerviel
Posted on January 29th, 2008 by Jackie Danicki
The comparisons to Che Guevara are perhaps the most offensive and also the most accurate in that just as Guevara was a mass murderer responsible for one of the most repressive totalitarian governments in history in contrast to the popular image of him as a defender of the common man, Kerviel was no Robin Hood but rather a rogue trader motivated by personal greed who, according to the allegations, massively miscalculated the direction of European markets and is single-handedly responsible for a financial loss of epic proportions.
I hasten to add that Robin Hood was a thief and a hero only to dimwits.
Filed under: Life
Which Robin Hood? It’s reckoned that there was probably a real outlaw known as something along the lines of “Robin Hood”, who just killed and stole. Fair enough if that’s who you mean. The stuff about giving his proceeds to the poor came long after his death and the myth built up from there. But in what way is the mythical character not a hero? He stole money from a corrupt and arguably illegitimate government, used it to provide food to people who were being starved to death by that government, defended the innocent from the state’s armed thugs, fought a brutally oppressive dictatorship, and defended the legitimate (and, in the myth, terribly good) king from a coup and possible assassination. Plus, as if that didn’t keep him busy enough, he fought evil sorcerers, apparently.
It’s been a thousand years, and the English still hate King John. The most common name in England, yet no English king or prince will ever again have the name. The man was so hated that the nobility invented civil rights and due process just to piss him off and we had a civil war about it. He even tried to sell England to Morocco, for crying out loud. Yes, we have a mythical hero who fought against the man and everything he stood for. I find it very puzzling that you, of all people, might have a problem with that.
Robin Hood is thought of as someone who stole from the rich to give to the poor, and yes, I have a problem with that.
I’d have a problem with it if it were set in the 20th Century, but the only reason the Norman nobility were the rich is that they were also thieves. You don’t think they earned their money, do you?
I don’t know, Jo, am I six years old suddenly? Seems like it, judging by the tone of your comments.
Guess I should have been more clear: The Robin Hood whom so many wrongheaded people find heroic is the one who stole from the rich (where their wealth came from does not matter to these people) to give to the poor, which strikes such dimwits as noble. That’s what I have a problem with.
I think that settles the matter.