I’m in the middle of “His Way” by Kitty Kelley and reading about how people would be drawn to Vegas casinos just to be able to spot a known mobster (drop in an ‘n’ instead of a ‘b’ and you’ll see how I feel about this) and brag about “seeing Jimmy ‘The Thumb’’” or some such, as if they were rock stars.
These people, from what I have learned from many sources, one of the most credible being the Donnie Brasco story (forget the film: read the book) are barely above cretins in IQ levels for the most part, and I just can’t see how these thugs can be idolised by so many, the media being among the worst perpetrators.
Why do these schmoes rate so highly in the public popularity polls? Is it because they mainly just kill each other and not us, and adhere to some arcane ancient “law of loyalty”?
They’re just common schmucks who happen to kill people. Why do they get so much press?
Fame in and of itself has some odd fascination for us. It gives a story legs all by itself. The MJ and OJ stories only made national news because of the fame of the accused. How many murders, how many child molestation accusations happen which do not garner even a tiny fraction of that kind of attention. Consider how we idolize entertainment stars. We don’t drool over the personal habits of scientists, or other achievers. But let some famous TV star endorse a product, and somehow its sales go up.
What I am saying, in regards to the OP is that people brag about seeing Jimmy ‘The Thumb’ because he is famous. It is not an endorsement of his activities. Somehow fame makes little or no distinction between famous and infamous.
It has to do with honor, loyalty and secrecy. Those do not seem to exist anymore in most people’s lives so people live vicariously through mobsters.
Today’s mobs are not the same as the circa 1950s Italian mobs. These days the Russian, Israeli, Asian (etc) mobs have no honor, loyalty or ethics (relatively speaking).
Therefore, the Italian mob of yester-year is more a form of nostalgia (as opposed to a romanticized profession).
Blame it on the “GODFATHER” books and movies. I myself have been interested in the Mafia and organized crime in general. The fact of the matter is this…99% of the members of the Mafia are vicious criminals, who would steal their own mothers blind. There is no loyalty or “code of honor”-these dirtbags care nothing except for money. Life in the lower levels of the mob is lousey…and there is the constant fear of getting “whacked” (killed). If you reach the upper levels of the Mob, there are some nice benefits…but again,you are always looking over your shoulder, because you arenever sure about your subordinates.
Really,its a career for psychopaths and those with limited intellectual abilities…besides, corporate crimepays much better, and is considerably safer! (Look at Ken Lay (former CEO of ENRON)-the man stole BILLIONS, and most likely, will never see the inside of a jail cell).
Yet I see this underlying sense of “belonging”. I wonder if it has to do with the security of belonging to a gang–a secret society–much like the “clubhouses” we formed when we were kids.
If you extend the analogy, armies are little more than organized “gangs”, just much bigger than illegal ones.
Could it be that we as a society, tolerate and even revere these thugs as “going against the grain” and preserving an ancient so-called “code” that resonates in our stupidly romantic dramatic sides? I think my point is that these are ordinary thugs with nothing better to do, not Robin Hoods trying to rescue the poor. I suppose the fact that they mainly kill themselves has a good selling point (much like suicide bombers–each time, there’s one less to plague us) but still, the amount of “Robin Hood” romanticism on TV and film is revealing.
**
Which is nonsense really and the type of glorification that the original poster was talking about. Prohibition era mobsters were some of the most violent criminals ever. Most of the 1950s gangsters had roots in prohibition which is how they amassed their fortunes and created “dynasties.” They killed without remorse and used extortion and violence to fleece unions, companies, and political coffers. They were by no means a “robin hood” of the people. That’s something perpetrated by Hollywood and U.S. cultural romanticism of gangsters.
They do the same things bribery, extortion, murder, theft, and whatever else to get what they want. What they are doing is no different than the italian mobsters, just a different cultural element involved. There’s nothing nostalgic about what these people did. They were responsible for some of the most egregious corruption of the 20th century. Who paid for it the most? Taxpayers and blue collar workers who got fleeced by mobsters either directly or indirectly.
It’s also an “American Dream” sort of legend - Italian immigrant comes over in steerage and builds criminal empire from nothing, that sort of thing. We love that sort of romanticized myth.
I remember when John Gotti was laid to rest a while back. I remember how the news was dominated by more praise for the guy than anything else. See this this article. Reading that you’d think the guy was a community activitist or a saint. Throngs of people showed up to the funeral procession. It dominated the front page of all the papers.
Mobsters dress well. They possess power and control. Their language is slick and colorful. They drive fancy cars. They idiolize their women while treating them like personal slaves. They kill artfully and deliberately. They are organized. Except for the people who cross them, they don’t harm nobody. At least, that’s what people who admire their lifestyle would like to believe.
For that matter, why do people romanticize pirates, wild West outlaws, Vikings, Hell’s Angels, or even inner-city gangs? I think it’s a Walter Mitty-esqe fantasy of being a badass who doesn’t have to care about laws or authority. The fact that people who actually live like this do so because they are too stupid, selfish, irresponsible or violent to function in society gets overlooked.
Well, if we have expanded the discussion to include why do people like outlaws, then I think it is an odd transformation of our ideal of rebellion. I think that in some way, we transformed the ideal of rebellion against tyranny into a fascination for rebellion against all authority. For instance, consider that Robin Hood fought against the userper and his tax collectors in the name of the oppresed people. He submitted to the proper king when he appeared. Somehow this has transformed.
I still think it is odd. Perhaps it has something to do with not thinking past the “We love someone who rebels” to the rest of the “against tyranny” phrase.