Ned Kelly: Hero, Victim Or Villain

[Ned Kelly 0]

Edward ?Ned? Kelly is reputed as Australia?s most renowned bushranger; an iconic outlaw believed to be a significantly influential contributor to the cultural development of the Australian identity. Regarded by many as a hero who fought ?for the rights of the oppressed? (Deborah Bird Rose, 1994), Ned has been the subject of much controversy due to his diverse attitude towards law enforcement officials and members of the community of the late nineteenth century. The lacking certainty establishing whether Ned Kelly was a hero, victim or villain has been disputed greatly throughout Australian history.

It is substantiated that Ned was a murderous rogue who terrorised towns and robbed affluent pastoralists; a man who contested the law and was disreputable for committing an array of crimes that were both vindictive and immoral. Ned Kelly was a villain; an outlaw and a thief who is ?wrongly immortalised as an Australian hero? (Fabrice Wilmann, 2008).

Despite this, it is extensively considered that Ned Kelly additionally exuded attributes of heroism. This is deduced primarily through certain perspectives of how his crimes were perceived. For instance, many believe that Ned represented justice for the maltreated and needy; the Irish immigrants, fiscally unprosperous citizens and in some instances, individuals in need of assistance. Such a time was in approximately 1865, when Ned saved Richard ?*BLEEP*? Shelton from drowning in Hughes Creek, Avenel, at considerable risk to his own life. ?Ned was formally thanked by the Shelton family with a green silk sash with gold fringe, which he later wore under his armour at the Siege of Glenrowan? (Nicky Cowie, 2004). As stated by politician, Fritz Goedgedrag, ?A hero is someone, who sacrifices for someone else.? In accordance with this quote, by saving Richard from drowning, Ned has exhibited a notable act of valor and consequently, can be considered a hero. In spite of this, overall, Ned Kelly cannot wholly be regarded as a morally-sound hero. This is due to the frequently dissolute behaviour of Ned. Generally considered one of Ned?s most dishonorable felons was the police siege of the Kelly Gang in the Glenrowan Hotel; an offence where Ned?s retribution led him to put the lives of innocent people in jeopardy. Ned and his gang ordered sixty hostages into the Glenrowan Hotel in an attempt to trap the police and use them as hostages to get Ned?s mum, Ellen, out of prison. This crude act of malice shows the sinister aspect of Ned?s morality during this time. Even though he was driven to this grievous act by the ferocity and sometimes unlawful behaviour of the police, his actions cannot be excused. This crime, which would soon escalate into a villainous act of murder, was anything but heroic and overtly demonstrates Ned Kelly?s lack of compassion for the general public. As a result, it is clear that rather than being an individual of exemplary morals who displayed attributes of heroism, Ned Kelly was more aptly classified as a villain.

In addition to being regarded as an Australian hero, many historians claim that Ned Kelly was a victim of his circumstances. He inhabited society of inequality between rich and poor, country and city, Irish Catholics and English Protestants and was often looked down upon by members of authority.

[room2593 0]

All of this can be explained away by the modern idea of Romanticism. People enjoy hearing stories about the "anti-hero," a hero who rebels against the norm in favor of his or her own moral code. Indiana Jones is a perfect example: he's trying to save artifacts, but he carries a bullwhip and pistol. He kills people, for crying out loud. So, there's your modern answer. Ned Kelly is a hero.In this culture, we worship the anti-hero as an icon to look up to. For as long as they are a part of our collective mindset, this question will be asked. Sorry, there won't be a consensus on whether or not Ned Kelly is a good guy.However, if you were to go back before modernism and the romantic ideals, Ned would be unequivocally a villain. He disrupts peace and the social order in order to further his own means and methods. He would be seen as selfish and dangerous.Romanticism changed that, of course.So the question of whether he is a victim, villain, or hero is purely subjective. Any definition that can change so radically over time is not a definition of fact, but rather of opinion. Your question is only valid on an individual basis and any answer can be refuted by anyone. What are you trying to accomplish, exactly?