Learning Adventure #5

Ned Kelly a Hero or Villian?

I believe that Learning Adventure #2, inspired by Gary Stager's travels through Australia and work with Australian students, who are taught that Ned Kelly was a hero, is worthy of inclusion because of the amount of discussion the topic inspired in Blackboard and the calibre of the ideas that were presented, defended, and changed in the course of the discussion. Additionally, I believe that the posts were the first time there were some good disagreements in the class, and people's ideas and beliefs were challenged and perhaps influenced by the dialogue and debate.

Most people started by reading about Ned Kelly in two different placed:

http://www.ironoutlaw.com/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly

Both give a good summary of the events that happened in Ned Kelly's life. The Iron Outlaw site is exhaustive in its research but more biased in its reporting; it stands to note that the site is produced by an Australian.

With the "facts" out there, the debate on Blackboard began. Kristin Dowling started the conversation by comparing Kelly to a modern day Robin Hood character, but refused to take sides until he had done more research. However, he frames the issue succinctly and without emotional bias:

"How does a man hanged for murder, become an Australian national hero?" (http://www.uow.edu.au/research/unibrewery/2004/2004-04-14.html)//

Did a ton of reading last night on the life and story of Ned Kelly. I had never heard of him before this learning adventure. After reading his story it sounds like a lot of people wonder how someone who commited numerous acts becomes a national hero. Apparently Ned was Austrailia's Robin Hood (wikipedia.com) in that people say he was fighting against corrrupt British rule. He was accused of many crimes including cattle stealing, robbing banks, taking a whole town hostage, attempting to derail a police train, and killing 3 police officers. (wikipedia.org/Ned_Kelly) He appeals to many people as a hero because he was devoted to his family and Irish culture, he came from a poor background yet he was clearly smart, and he also was wronged by the law several times. (theage.com.au) People for sorry for the life he was born into. (Back to nature vs. nuture) His father was also arrested several times. I am not sure yet what i personally think on whether Ned Kelly was a hero. I want to read the Jerilderie Letter and do some more research before I come to my final conclusion. Is he another Robin Hood? Did he give to the poor or was he just man done wrong by police? I have known people who been wronged by the law but does that make them a hero for physically acting out against the law? Was it Ghandi that said an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind. Stay posted there will be more to come soon. Just my inital reaction right now (Dowling, 2006).

And with that the conversation began. People started feeling that perspective brought much to bear on the decision as to whether Kelly could be considered a hero, most agreeing that Kelly's situation may have necessitated some of his rough behavior. David Greenfield changed the topic, however, by suggesting that people like Kelly might fill a larger need in the public's psyche.

Good question- according to the movies he was a hero. I have been thinking more about the mythology of these heros. There is so much blending of fact and fiction all tempered by time. There seem to be example of this archtype all over the world. Behnaz- is there an example of this character in Iran?

I think that people need the myth of this archtype more than then they need the actual person. The myth seems to appear in societies that are repressed by the authorities- Ned, Robin, Zorro. I remember reading about a woman bandit in India who displayed some of the same characteristics- rob the rich, distribute to the poor, etc). These archtype represent a kind of hope that there exists a protector of them, someone who delves out justice to the reppressor.

Perhaps the question then shifts to not whether these characters really exist, but whatg is the real emotional, psychological and historical need that they fill (Greenfield, 2006).

Further muddying the waters, Katrin Steele argued that in certain situations heroism might co-exist with non-heroic actions.

I apologize for the late response: I have been keeping up with all of your entries, and I've seen a lot of excellent write ups and discussions, and it's challenged my thinking as well. So I decided to look up and see how the word hero is defined. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a hero is:

1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : SUBMARINE 2 THIS ONE DOESN'T APPLY HERE!
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : IDOL

I also read quiet a bit about Ned Kelley and his trials and tribulations on line, and at the end, I see him as a man, trying to survive, as things went from bad to worse. I also realized that even though I would not consider him a hero, I'd have to admit that his life and his story would qualify him for a hero status, based on how some viewed him and the definitions above. Regardless of how a hero is defined, it ultimately comes down to personal interpretation, and the determining factors are timing, circumstances and sometimes, the need to believe in something or someone. As for me, I view a hero as someone who would use him or her self as the instrument to make things better for others, through noble and admirable acts. When I think of heroic behavior, I don't associate it with rebellious activities or acts to ensure survival. I would acknowledge that Ned Kelly was ultimately in a loose-loose situation. Back then, if someone rubbed off wrong with the law or someone "enforcing" the law, for what ever reason, they'd be tagged as trouble and that would start the unpleasant courtship. Ned started out doing what he needed to do to survive and to support his family. The law tagged him and those associated with him, and it only got worse. To some, he was an icon, and to others, he was nothing but an outlaw that had to be contained, or destroyed, in his case. So can someone be a hero and a non-hero at the same time? I'd have to say, absolutely!

Resources:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hero
http://www.ironoutlaw.com/html/writings_montague.html
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/nedkelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly
http://www.convictcreations.com/history/nedkelly.htm
(Steele, 2006)

Until this point people had flip-flopped on the issue, refusing to take a stand on such a complex issue as Ned Kelly's heroism. Then Heather Walberg concluded he was not a hero.

So I read about Ned the night we got the assignment and it took me a couple of days to decide what I think. I believe that he is NOT a hero in the true sense of the word. In my eyes a hero is able to accomplish his/her goals while upholding ethical value. You could argue that what he did was ethical in his eyes, but if your asking my opinion, I in no think his actions were ethical. There are many ways to solve problems other than robbing banks and killing policeman (Walberg, 2006).

Allen Haren found a flaw in this argument and countered.

You make a very good point on ethics, but let me ask you these questions. If a man saves another man's life is he considered a hero? And what iif this man had a criminal past? Does that strip away his hero title? This is an extreme example. For a more day to day example children can look up to their parents or teachers as heros. I believe a hero is someone you can respect and say that that person performs the extraordinary. The point is that we can all be heros, even those who may slip up ethically.

Do you feel that any of Ned's actions at Stringbark could be considered self defense? Did he ever get a fair and impartial trial for that matter? If you look at his criminal report (found at http://www.ironoutlaw.com/html/documents_57.html ) you will see that it wasn't until the Stringbark incident that he could be considered a dangerous person.

I am not attacking your position, just presenting the other side to further the discussion (Haren, 2006).

But David Greenfield had trouble justifying the actions of the police.

I think that you are generally correct in your definition of a hero. But I respectfully, I am not sure that I agree with you about juding the ethics of his actions regarding the police, expecially given the distance in time, geography and politics. Given the situation in Australia at that time, I am not sure that we would have acted different. When setting up a colony, the British had a tendency to populate it with "undesirables" (debtors, prisoners), and thn send in their administrators and army to "manage" the country. Look at where they have been (the sun never sets on the English empire) and left (India, the mid-east, Asia, and even our own USA) and for better or worse, you will see a trail of problems, revoutions and war. British rule was not always benevolant. So without putting Kelly into the socio-political context, I find it difficult to talk about ethics or methods to solve probvlems via bank robbing or killing policemen.

This is a slippery-slope issue though. I am a supporter of Gandhi's methods of non-violence. I do not believe in violent revolution. Yet there are times when one is faced with a clear and close power that exercies all of its power in methods that are the antithesis of non-violence. Look at the nazis, aparthied, or the governmentds in Cambodia or Rwanda. I am not sure that non-violence could have stopped the governments in power (Greenfield, 2006).

Mitch Townsend then chimed in with an eloquently argued stand defending Ned Kelly as a hero. His argument was long and complicated, and I have excerpted the conclusion here. The full response is here: http://students.pepperdine.edu/mntownse/644_2.htm

In conclusion I would state that Ned Kelly and the "Kelly Gang" were Irish immigrant folk heroes in Australia and to millions of Irish immigrants worldwide. His treatment by the authorities was unfair, and pre-ordained. He was a threat to the established power structure and he had to be made an example of, it was that simple. He met his end with the same cockiness and courage that had marked his life. Because of this he was canonized in a saying that exemplified strength, resistance and courage. "To the last, his mocking courage never deserted him and to be ,as game as Ned Kelly,; came to symbolize, in Australian folk-language, heroism of a reckless, audacious kind" (Ironoutlaw, 2006).

Ned Kelly was a hero, just as was Paul Revere, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and a long list of American Rebels who fought against British authority to create a more egalitarian and inclusive society free from tyranny and self delusions of superiority. They won and he lost that's the difference! (Townsend, 2006)

Allen Haren took issue with the factual basis of the argument and presented evidence that it was Irish vs. Irish and not English vs. Irish as posed in Mitch's arguement. His conclusion is excerpted below. You can read the full post on his website: http://allen.treklog.net/work/edc664-adventure2.html#Adventure2

I am sorry Mitch, while I agree with your end statement, that he was a hero, I have to disagree with the foundations of your argument. So what makes Ned Kelly a hero? Again, I say it is because he saved a life at the risk of his own, but more so than that it is in his protective nature, loyalty to his family and friends all while showing courage in the face of certain death. He was a revolutionary against a corrupt system and he fought until the end. It is this character, honor, fairness, strength and sacrifice that people relate to him as a hero. I believe a quote from www.crimelibrary.com sums it up best, "while the status quo that Ned Kelly so violently challenged is fading into history, the values that Kelly articulated in his letters at Euroa and Jerilderie have become part of the fabric of the nation, and his ethos, real or manufactured for public consumption, has become an essential element of the Australian national character" (Haren, 2006).

Robert Martellacci agreed with Mitch, though.

I'm with Mitch, Ned Kelly was a hero to many in his day, but, not in my books. I aspire to greater qualities. When once considers the context, Ned is an undisputable hero. At an early age he did save a boy from drowning, risking his own life. He was rooted in Irish heritage, having to grow up quickly because of the death of his father and forced to leave school. Living in harsh impoverished conditions with no education, the best option was turning to criminal activities as a means of survival. It's no surprise that kids who drop-out of school today will often turn to criminal behavior.

The Jerilderie letter helped to convince me that Ned could be a hero to his people. He was a rebel with a cause in his own mind, "the treatment of Irish Catholics by the police and the English and Irish Protestant squatters." (wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly). That was the context and the meaning he had in his life ...a man on a mission. He was courageous and fearless, representing his people. There was also talk of an uprising and perhaps the rationale in stealing money from banks was to fund the larger scheme. Were there other motives, perhaps, something to do for excitement as he had no formal training or a career pursuit. The law eventually caught up with him and so did death. He stood for Irish Catholics struggles in a new land. Hence, some 30,000 signatures appeared on a petetion to save him from death. His story is legendary thanks to the power of the media and technology today. I look forward to your thoughts? Cheers, R.

Readings:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly
http://www.ironoutlaw.com
http://www.nedkellysworld.com.au/history/history.htm
(Martellacci, 2006)

Finally, I chimed in with my statement that Ned Kelly was no hero. You can read the post on this web page:

http://students.pepperdine.edu/jjburker/learning-adv-02.html

The conclusion is excerpted here:

The concept of heroism is tied to the contemporary opinion, and it is easy to see how an individual like Ned Kelly would be promoted to hero status by his fellow countrymen. However, through the lends of the twenty-first century Ned Kelly is no more a hero than Bonnie and Clyde, for example, part of another gang who were seen by their contemporaries as heroes because of their bank robberies committed during the Great Depression. Robbery, bloodshed, and murder have never been seen by any civilized culture as being "good" or "noble," and for this reason I am unable to label Ned Kelly a hero (Burker, 2006).

After some sparing with Mitch over the finer points, I posted a rebuttal in which I reconsidered the notion of heroism and came to a conclusion similar to that Katrin argued many posts earlier. You can read the full post here, http://students.pepperdine.edu/jjburker/learning-adv-02.html#followup, but the conclusion is excerpted below.

Where does this leave leave me in my consideration of Ned Kelly as hero? How do I reconcile the historical context of Ned Kelly's heroism with the modern context of heroism, the context with which I feel most aligned and that finds Ned Kelly to not be a hero? I believe my answer again lies in a literary convention of heroism: the tragic hero. The tragic hero possesses a flaw so fatal that it leads to his or her ultimate downfall. Othello, the leader of men and a nation, the devout lover, becomes consumed by the lies planted by Iago, murdering his own wife and Iago's before taking his own life. I see Ned Kelly as a tragic hero, for it considers the attributes that made him heroic in historic context (resistance to unjust system of justice, bush-ranging) with a fatal flaw (an aptitude and propensity for violence). I believe this determination to finally answer the question, "Is Ned Kelly a hero?" and revise my original answer to, "Yes, and a fatally flawed one at that!" (Burker, 2006)

Behnaz Nassernia also had an interesting conclusion that brought us back into the grey area of Ned Kelly's heroism.

I believe in we have to judge people based on his or her circumstances. When I can effort to feed my kids, I can't judge a mother as a thief who steals food to give to her hungry child. I think Ned wasn't a criminal person. As we all read the story he actually helps a child from drawing in his early childhood.
He was in the situation where he was accused of things with which he actually had no connection. Addition, it is very hard for a boy as a head of the family to see how his mother, brothers and sister keep suffering for something that history believes they didn¿' do it. Ned didn't care what is right or wrong. He learned that there isn't any justice in world and he had to fight for his life and those for whom he was responsible.
When I look at several website and read about him, I didn't get the feeling that he was a hero, but definitely I believe he wasn't a villain. Maybe he was born in the wrong family or in the wrong time (Nassernia, 2006).

There were many opinions being expressed, and some of them managed to change my view on the matters. People participated in a very well-thought out debate that called previously held convictions into question.