[Thunderhawk]

Read the Jerilderie letter. Then read a biography of Kelly. And then report back.

{I} Read the wikipedia article before I posted.

I have no{w} re-read the Jerilderie letter.

After thinking about it a bit more, I still stand by my previous statement.

He mentioned a plight that many people were probably thinking of. He gave it some attention - that is a good step to begin a campaign.

But other then that, what did he do to further that campaign?



{bloody typos}

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well, we know Ned Kelly didn't start a revolution or clean up the Victorian police force or similar, but these things are not necessary for him to be an historical 'hero'.

I think we both agree that for Kelly to historically have been some sort of 'people's hero' he needs to have been more than a thug and a thief. The political background of his actions (as described in the Jerilderie letter and elsewhere) together with his general 'gallant' conduct concerning civilians (as you'd pick up from a more detailed biography of him) do suggest he was a very complex, gentlemanly and politically-motivated person though which makes me disagree with your apparent assessment of him as little more than a violent criminal.

[Thunderhawk]

The political background of his actions (as described in the Jerilderie letter and elsewhere) together with his general 'gallant' conduct concerning civilians (as you'd pick up from a more detailed biography of him) do suggest he was a very complex, gentlemanly and politically-motivated person

It sounds like there is more to his life and actions that wikipedia does not elaberate (have) info on, so I say he could be a folk hero.

But the evidence at hand just makes him out to be a criminal.
Justified, gallant, politically minded and probably one of the few people who really can be called victims of society. But I dont see how that makes him a folk hero.

(Again, it sounds like there is more, but at hand it isnt enough, IMHO)