Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ClearCase_guy

Yes, my 1950s history books were biased in what they put in and what they left out, and in the interpretation.

But Hollywood has pushed the envelope. Consider Robin Hood. The facts are clear. The king was away fighting a war in the middle east. The war was sucking all the tax money.

The Sheriff of Nottingham was without his normal tax money. So he stole the grain, chickens, livestock and silverware of the middle class. He would have stolen it from the poor ... except the poor did not have anything worth taking.

Robin Hood and his Merry Men returned to their rightful owners the property that the Sheriff had stolen.

Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood did not steal. The Sheriff was big government. Robin Hood was against big government.


8 posted on 08/25/2018 11:40:51 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: spintreebob; ClearCase_guy
Your mention of Robin Hood is a good one. The challenge then becomes correcting the historical record, because those who would manipulate or omit facts are not usually in the business of shooting up a flare and saying "Hey I'm going to turn this upside down now!" - they just do it.

Back to Robin Hood, if we want to correct the record it will require highlighting the turning point. See this:

Who polluted Robin Hood?

One side will gladly say something is true and the other will gladly deny it, but only those who can contrast the before, turning point, and after can put the issue to bed.

9 posted on 08/25/2018 11:53:49 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (We cannot leave history to "the historians" anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson