No.

[agilebrit]

No, no, nonoNO!

Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the poor. I realize that "he stole from the rich to give to the poor" is more catchy, but it's wrong. GYAH. This exercise in attempting to set the record straight has been brought to you by "A Bug's Life" and a preview for the Disney version of Robin Hood.

In other news, I am holding, in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, a bunch o' loot:

The Stepsister Scheme, by the handsome and talented jimhines.

Definitely Dead, a Sookie Stackhouse True Blood novel by Charlaine Harris. Yeah, I've gotten hooked on these.

the Ultimate Hulk vs Iron Man: Ultimate Human graphic novel. Because I'm a big ol' nerd and I had a coupon for 30% off.

Ender's Game #3.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer #22. Of course, I haven't actually read one of these since #12 or so... I am woefully behind on my comic reading. And it's not getting any better.

The Invincible Iron Man #10 and holyshit is that a needle heading for his eyeball on the cover??? Gyaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Why, yes, not!Harry comes by his mad needle fear as a result of me projecting. Why do you ask?

Comments

[rhfay.livejournal.com]

"Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the poor. I realize that "he stole from the rich to give to the poor" is more catchy, but it's wrong."

Actually, in Robin Hood's day, they were basically one and the same. The rich and powerful (those with a retinue of mounted warriors and a string of strong castles) were the core of government in medieval England. They collected the taxes from the rabble, and passed it on (minus their cut) to the crown. And, for the most part, those taxes truly went to benefit the crown and peers, usually to finance their wars and increase their personal power. It didn't really go to benefit the nation as such. It was much more a government revolved around individuals than it is now. Even the "capital" was effectively wherever the king and his court were located at any given moment. Only a few tentative inroads were made towards a "constitutional" government, in documents like Magna Carta (a charter that pretty much protected the rights of the nobles, not the common man).

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Okay, maybe not "wrong" per se, but ... not as accurate as my way of putting things. ;)

[rhfay.livejournal.com]

It's all really a matter of splitting hairs anyway, and Robin Hood's actions were still of a "treasonous" nature. Heck, William Wallace was drawn, hanged, and quartered, in part, because of his "treason" against a king he never felt he owed any allegiance to in the first place!

One groups', nationality's, or country's freedom fighter is often another group's, nationality's, or country's traitor.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Well, look what would have happened to our own Founding Fathers had the War for Independence gone...badly. "Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" wasn't just an abstract thing to them. So, yeah.

[rhfay.livejournal.com]

Yep. According to the powers that be in England at the time, the founding fathers were traitors to king and country. The Tories remained loyal subjects of their sovereign.