i didn't watch the movie yet, but i bet thats the whole idea is "Robin Hood is a dude that got pissed"   See 12 other replies

Alright, I'll give you the insurgent part, that is a better way to describe it. As for war hero and s.g.f. I think you are missing the point. A person can be both, and this is what I was trying to get at. Robin Hood was a War Hero, both from his time spent in the Crusades (according to some lore) and from his actions at home. But his tactics to reach this status at home were Guerrilla based. I wrote them in as an extension of the same word to attempt to show this without a paragraph explanation.As for terrorism, I am using it here in the barest definition of the word, I am NOT using it in the modern cultured understanding of the word. The basest meaning of terrorist is someone who inspires fear/anger in people, whether that be a large population of people or a small targeted group, and uses that fear/anger to control the opposing parties movements and actions. By this definition, a grade school bully is a terrorist, and it is this boiled down, bare bones definition of the word that I am using to make my point.   See 12 other replies

Can't believe I misspelled legend.   See 12 other replies

The most well known and defining part of the Robin Hood legdend is:Rob from the rich and give to the poor.Technically, it's not Socialism. I say that because Socialism is more about a state which directly controls the economic gears of its members.On the other hand, one of the goals of Socialism is to create a society in which wealth is evenly distributed among its members. Even distribution of wealth is exactly the same as the aim of the adage "rob from the..."But the distinction is that Robin Hood is often portrayed in many different classes. Sometimes he is a nobelman, sometimes he is a peasant. This matters because Socialism is all about governance. If Robin Hood intends to become a governor and behaves in a manner similar to the way he has behaved, than he will indeed be a socialist (or if he supports a system of governance which operates the way he seems to). However, if he operates outside the boundaries of law and on his own accord and for members not belonging to his group, than he won't be a socialist.Basically, if Robin Hood were King and acted the same, yes he would be a socialist. Else, no.   See 12 other replies

No, they weren't. Not the ones in charge. That's why they made a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Also, they supported slavery and pursuit of wealth. They were generally against a standing army and had a lot of arguments about State governments vs. Federal government, but they generally agreed that both should be quite limited.They were not economically, socially, or politically socialist. The OP's argument didn't lend it self to that conclusion by any stretch of logic what-so-ever. Robin Hood doesn't just fight for liberty of himself, or liberty of others. Furthermore, what Robin Hood was fighting against was different from what the early Americans fought against. Robin Hood fought against an aristocracy of wealth, striving for economic equality (rob from the rich to give to the poor, the most well known part of RH). The early USA fought against an aristocracy of English.Washington wasn't really a terrorist, by most any definition of a historically English point of view. Insurgent would be a much better word.The difference between a "war hero" and a "smart guerrilla fighter" is that you're confused. A war hero is a subjective term used to describe a person highly revered for behavior related to a state's war. A s.g.f. is a somewhat less subjective term used to describe a person who wises uses guerrilla tactics to meet his or her goals during time of war or armed conflict. You're right that the state of being so defined can vary greatly from person to person, but they are hardly two sides of the same coin, as you seem to be suggesting. For one simple example, one of the American Generals from WW2 may be considered a war hero by some or not by others, but nobody in their right mind would call that general a s.g.f., whether or not they considered the general a war hero.I'm not going to rail on you about terrorism is, because you don't really seem to know what you're talking about.   See 12 other replies

"Robin Hood couldn't have been a socialist because the only thing supporting his existence is fiction, therefore he couldn't have been a socialist because he didn't exist. I watched him as a fox when I was a child and I wasn't convinced he was real then either. But for the sake of the discussion..."And he couldn't have used arrows because arrows are real and he isn't. Right?Next time just assume "for the sake of the discussion" and use paragraph breaks. Then I'll read what you wrote.   See 12 other replies

Back when people started to tell Robin Hood stories, sheriffs (like the Sheriff of Nottingham) had another job besides law enforcement. They also collected taxes. So Robin Hood stories were largely about someone who didn't want to pay his taxes.Robin Hood has more in common with Tea Partiers than anything else.   See 12 other replies