From Robin Hood to the Kray twins there has been a tendency in Western European cultures to mythologise outlaws, many of whom were cold blooded murderers. The American gangsters of the 1920's to the present day have been glamorised is countless movies, comics and novels. The villains are often portrayed as far more interesting than their law enforcement opponent, who often in these myths become villains themselves.
The murderous activities of Jesse James and Billy the Kid, John Dillinger and Bonny & Clyde left dozens of innocent people dead and many families of ordinary folk grieving. The New York & Chicago mobs destroyed the lives of thousands and made life a misery for the legitimate businesses of those cities.
The reality is that virtually all gangsters going back from modern times to the medieval outlaw were motivated by greed and prepared to kill sometimes for pleasure to support their life styles.
What is it about Western culture that perpetuates the heroic myths?
I doubt that the gangsters ever gave many people freedom.
In the UK & US this mythologising of outlaws is big business and has been for hundreds of years.
In the UK we celebrate Pirates as national heroes. In the US Western Outlaws and 20th century mobsters are deeply engrained in the historical culture.
In reality the Pirates of the 16th and 17th centuries and the Wild West outlaws were a sign of cultural failure. The American gangsters of the 20th century were a sign of the failure of the 'American Dream' both in government and in the role of those who were sent to fight them.
It is very odd that we think of these people as folk heroes rather than the murderous predators they really were.
Barry,
they don't give people freedom. They are free theirselves and people envy them.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Turner & readers,
I don't think that I would myself "mythologize outlaws," and I tend to think of say. Bonny and Clyde as belonging to the appeal of "action" stories and movies. I can see something in the remarks of Kralj and Kislyakov, but I don't think that outlaws generally free anyone. That would be a rather incoherent concept of freedom.
I'd make something of an exception for the Robin Hood story, which I understand as a kind of English "foundation myth." Though officially an outlaw due to the oppression of Prince John (later the king John of Magna Carta infamy) Robin Hood and his men help bring about a popular choice between Prince John and king Richard, Lionheart --who eventually returns from imprisonment on the continent to take up his rightful role.
Though the Norman royals remain, the ordinary (Anglo-Saxon) people make an effective choice between the good king, Richard and the evil Prince John. This is a story of how the Anglo-Saxons and the Norman conquers became a single people. Or, that is how I understand the story. Implicitly, its the story of the ascendancy of parliament over the monarchy.
Its a very Whiggish myth, of course, in both the positive and negative sense.
H.G. Callaway
Dear all,
To gain something positive from the question it is important that not all glorified and mythical "outlaws" or knights against the authorities were wicked murderers. Some can also be called daredevils.
In human evolution, humans have always sought the protection of the group or of a protector. Perhaps it has to do with this longing and in the battle "below against above" .
ML
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Kislyakov & readers,
One may certainly doubt that, say, the American outlaws, Bonny and Clyde, the bank robbers, were ever free themselves in any significant sense. Instead they were hunted across the country until caught and gunned down. Of course, they did get some money. Is that a measure of freedom? Is being envied a kind of freedom, or it it the opposite of freedom?
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
they don't give people freedom. They are free theirselves and people envy them.
It is an interesting concept that gangsters give vicarious freedom to us ordinary folk. In fact gangsters create societies that are far less free in very respect. In the UK eulogised criminals such as the Kray Twins actually created a fearful society and few beyond their confederates enjoyed freedom during their era.
It is easy to see how these myths took root in the US. Imbecile legislation like prohibition and anti labour laws designed to oppress the working classes could easily be manipulated by savvy crooks to make them look like freedom fighters. With an attentive and profit driven media to circulate and spin the stories opportunist and murderous thugs could be made to look like the 'oppressed' striking back.
This was seen much earlier with the Jesse James myth. James was a cold blooded murderer and career criminal but was portrayed by Southern sympathisers in the aftermath of the American Civil War as an icon for the 'put down' Rebel soldiers.
He was nothing of the sort and would not have been thought so without the efforts of a Kansas newspaperman.
It says something profound about our societies who portray these people as heroic when their victims were, in the main the very people oppressed by the law.
Dear Barry and contributors, Thanks for the interesting question. The concept of vicarious freedom is indeed interesting. But I may add to this that it is not the freedom that gangsters give to ordinary folk, but the other way around. The point of mythologizing a figure is to disconnect it from the specific social ties, like a work of art, and present it in its abstract splendor, if I may put it in these terms. Therefore the vicarious freedom works in the opposite sense, from ordinary folk to outlaws. Ordinary people invest in them ideals of freedom that the outlaws did not actually have, and the result is a mythologized image, or figure, which we like to worship, not the actual social individual. I was thinking about writing an essay on this issue, so it is interesting that I found this discussion online. Thanks again, and look forward to see more reaction. Ionut Untea
Ionut
Thanks for your observations. I have written essays on the mythological policemen who is also an idealised character.
Very much of the myth creation comes from the press & media and this was much exaggerated during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Highwaymen and Pirates although described as villains were also given grudging admiration being transformed from ruthless predators on the society into the anti-hero.
Interesting question. It entirely depends who these "bad boys" are, though. And Eugene's answer is one possibility.
The Robin Hood type of "bad boy" is made popular because he stole from the undeserving rich, not for his own benefit, but to give to the oppressed poor. Then there are the Bonny and Clyde type, sort of stylish criminals, probably much like what Eugene said. Apparently, most of the stories about them are untrue. Some pirates too, are portrayed as dashing and independent.
But not all outlaws are mythologized, right? Charles Manson is not mythologized, more like despised. My theory on why such violent types seem to gather a following is perhaps something hard-coded in our genes, to join the troop that can best protect us, in the wild world ca. 40,000 years ago? Back then, people did not much depend on poets or artists, for survival. Better hang with the more ruthless "bad boys," if you want to live another day. I think that might explain why some women seem attracted to "bad boys." And then, of course, as a direct consequence, why some guys become "bad boy wannabes."
Myth goes towards positive, super-human, and towards negative, devilish.
Both fascinate.
Take Jack the ripper, a first modern time sensational criminal, front page of newspapers, what we call tabloids, is still selling well. Pubs where was seen in London, tours telling his story.
That was the start of sensational news, and sensationalist novels and the movies, series.
Recipe: horrible crime, calling for a "how shocking" reaction.
It was not a first, actually, it was finding again the mechanism of Greek tragedy or Wagnerian opera: shocking context, tension, manicheist battle of good and bad, taboos, etc..
Former contributors have given an extended view on sensational criminals.
I would like to ask about the thieves, and the economic scaling factor:
-steal 100$
-steal 1000$
...
-steal 1 billion $
The higher figures call for highest echo in the news.
Why is that?
Is there an interesting impulse to steal 1billion $, whereas a case of 100$ is not interesting?
Distinguished contributors with background in social sciences, media sociology, behavioral economics, any view?
Carlos is quite correct about he British and piracy. In the 16th and 17th centuries the English Crown gave Letters of Marque to notorious pirates who used them to attack and loot Spanish ships. Often the crews of those ships were brutally treated.
The Spanish ships were taking riches back to Spain that they had stolen and looted from indigenous people in South America. The indigenous people of South America, who had had their priceless artefacts stolen and melted down to enrich the Spanish monarchy also were subjected to genocidal treatment by the looters.
European Imperialists have little to be proud of in the detailed analysis.
British pirates were indeed not Robin Hood and neither were French, Dutch and Spanish pirates. They were indeed all bad and dirty and a product of imperialism.
Spanish Conquistadors also were bad and dirty spreading disease all over the South American continent and killing millions who refused to embrace their religion. Western Europeans did the same in North America too and none of the European imperialist countries is without blame.
The Conquistadors were also a kind of pirate with exactly the same mission as the English pirates. To rob and steal all the wealth of the nations they invaded for the benefit of their own elites. The English pirates with their Letters of Marque from the English monarchy were stealing gold and silver from thieves and murderers who had stolen it from its owners or who had forced indigenous peoples into slavery to dig it up for them.
The later English pirates, who had set up their own criminal empires of course were not particular about who they robbed. English merchant ships were just as likely to be a target as any other nation's. That is why in the end they were hunted down and exterminated.
It is quite bizarre that in the 21st Century that people in Britain and Spain still think of these hideous people as heroes.
That is a large part of the history of these peoples and their ancient cultures
Carlos
I do not honour pirates. They were criminals and most got their just desserts at Executioners Wharf or were killed at sea by the Royal Navy.
The British Crown does not honour pirates today. They are regarded for what they were. It is indeed a shame that anyone thinks that criminals are heroic
There may have been few 'Spanish Pirates' (Bartolomé Charpes, Eduardo Blomar, Juan Guartem, Don Benito et al and the vast majority were of course English, French or Dutch, all of whom confiscated the already stolen loot from Spanish galleons
The Conquistadors, whose descendants loaded stolen riches onto the galleons in South America to transport to the Spanish Crown were murderous criminals and thieves too. The Catholic Church also took its worst Inquisition torturers and murderers into South America to brutalise the population into forced conversion to Christianity. How many statues to the Conquistadors are there in Spanish cities?
Neither Britain nor Spain has anything to be proud of in the ruthless imperialism they both engaged in. All statues honouring imperialists, whatever nation they originated in should either be removed or plaques should be added to them explaining what rogues they were.
Carlos
You cannot be serious! What you are saying here is tantamount to holocaust denial. There is a huge amount of evidence that the Conquistadors and their Sonderkommando 'missionaries' killed countless indigenous people who would not convert, often with their favourite methods of garrotting or burning at the stake.
Your comments resemble those who suggest that the British Empire was a civilising project bringing Christianity and education to the heathens rather than a looting exercise designed to make the British elite rich.
The indigenous peoples of South America did not need teaching artisanry or commerce. There were sophisticated civilisations that pre-dated the Spanish Empire by centuries when the Conquistadors attacked them. They manufactured beautiful gold and ceramic art, which the Spanish stole, melted down and sent back to Spain to enrich the King. As for roads, the Inca's had a road transport system the equal of any in Spain. The Maya and other peoples had mathematics and agricultural technology far superior to that of superstition ridden Spain.
The only thing they did not have was horses and guns which the Spanish used to great effect in killing and conquering them. Why are they known as Conquistadors if they were, in your description simply aid workers bring help to the people.
You are right about one thing, they cannot be compared with pirates. They killed maybe a few tens of thousands of victims. The Spanish colonists killed the indigenous population by the million.
If you wish to deny that virtually nothing else you say can be taken in any way seriously.
Dear Barry
this is not true of Europeans only that they mythologise outlaws. This is true of other cultures too.
In India also there are several examples when outlaws have been glorified in literature and movies since they provide an important anti-thesis for the running stream of ideas and provide something new, thrilling which is the need of the audience. They also help understand the ruling narratives of the time hence become important. Its true they cant be inspirational.
Characters like Ravana, Balmiki, Anguliman, Foolan Devi, Veerappan etc. some important examples from India
HKT
I agree with Harish. There were outlaws in several other cultures. There were outlaws in Israel. There were outlaws in my culture, the Efik Kingdom of Nigeria. One very significant outlaw actually saved the entire kingdom from piracy and converted his dynasty into a ruling house in the kingdom. It is true that there is a certain myth about these kinds of people. The reason is simple. People do not get to see their exploits anymore, so all the stories about them sound like fairy tales.
Harish
A colleague of mine is an authority on Indian Theatre. I will mention your Indian outlaws to him and see what he knows about their portrayal in theatre.
Barry
There is a long list of outlaws like dacoits, ciminals who have been theatrized, filmised or glorified in lieterature. some of them are Gabbar Singh Gujjar, who inspired the famous 1975 film Sholay, based on his life. then there are Chavviram Singh Yadav, he became synonymous with awe, Kalua Yadav. Malangi. Phoolan Devi. Dadua Gujjar. Daku Man Singh, Verappan etc.
Since realism entered the film industry around early fifties in India it led to the representation of the real be it legal, moral and righteous or outlawed.
There was a film movement in India, that happened decades later if compared to the west, known as parallel cinema that originated in the state of West Bengal in the 1950s as an alternative to the mainstream commercial Indian cinema.
Inspired by Italian Neorealism, Parallel Cinema began just before the French New Wave and Japanese New Wave, and was a precursor to the Indian New Wave of the 1960s. The movement was initially led by Bengali cinema and produced internationally acclaimed filmmakers such as Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen, Ritwik Ghatak, Tapan Sinha and others. It later gained prominence in other film industries of India and Bangladesh.
HKT
The American Wild West was very wild in many respects. Some of the most famous shoot outs were not between outlaws but between lawmen themselves. The Lincoln County Wars and the long feud between the Earp's and the Cowboys being major examples.
The outlaws and law enforcement officers were often the same people with Sherriffs, Marshalls and Constables frequently being nothing more than criminals with a badge on.
What is the population of America? Outlaws of any kind. Outlaws were sent by England to America as by Russia to Siberia.
Dear all,
Between 1971 and 1993, 33 people were assassinated or killed by the left-wing extremist terrorist organization Red Army Faction. The terrorist attacks targeted executives in politics, business and administration as well as American soldiers. Police officers, customs officials and drivers were also killed in bank robberies, controls, attempted arrests and kidnappings. Fatalities are counted here, people seriously or seriously injured are not recorded.
List of fatalities of Red Army faction (RAF): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Todesopfer_der_Rote_Armee_Fraktion
It doesn't matter from which motive someone assassinates: murderer remains murderer. RAF members have evaded their responsibility by suicide or are defected to state security.
ML
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Ornithology