what makes a hero?
Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:43 pm
I'm not out to knock heads or slander anybody or anything. I have noticed however, that there is a common lack of unity amongst us when it comes to this definition. I think a lot of that derives from individuals moral (or lack of) character. Jack and his disgust with Pappy Boyington comes to mind, and my own disgust with Duke Cunningham as well. We seem to need to choose men who had moral fiber. But American Heritage Dictionary makes it clear that that is NOT why a hero is chosen.
Is there a moral requirement for being considered a hero? IS there some other standard that AHD claims?
1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.
3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.*
4. The principal male character in novel, poem, or dramatic presentation. See Usage Note at heroine.**
* SYNONYMS: celebrity, hero, luminary, name, notable, peronage. The central meaning shared by these nouns is "a widely known person": social celebrities,; the heroes of science; a theatrical luminary; a big name in sports; a notable of the concert stage; a personage in the field of philosophy.
**The word hero should no longer be regarded as restricted to men in the sense "a person noted for courageous action," though heroine is always restricted to women. The distinction between hero and heroine is still useful, however, in referring to the principal character of a fictional work, inasmuch as the virtues and qualities that become a traditional literary heroine like Elizabeth Bennet or Isabel Archer are generally quite different from those that become a traditional literary hero like Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn.
Is there a moral requirement for being considered a hero? IS there some other standard that AHD claims?
Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:48 pm
Heroes are simply ordinary people who performed extraordinary acts during extraordinary circumstances.
Having personally known a handful of individuals who were awarded significant decorations and/or survived horrific circumstances (MoH awardee, POWs in WWII / Vietnam / Iraq, Bataan Death March survivor, Pearl Harbor survivor), my personal opinion is that there is no moral requirement for being a hero. ALL of these men were heroes in my book, yet none of them fit some textbook definition of having perfect moral character.
They were all men, imperfect and fallible -- just as the rest of us are.
Having personally known a handful of individuals who were awarded significant decorations and/or survived horrific circumstances (MoH awardee, POWs in WWII / Vietnam / Iraq, Bataan Death March survivor, Pearl Harbor survivor), my personal opinion is that there is no moral requirement for being a hero. ALL of these men were heroes in my book, yet none of them fit some textbook definition of having perfect moral character.
They were all men, imperfect and fallible -- just as the rest of us are.
Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:19 pm
Randy Haskin wrote:They were all men, imperfect and fallible -- just as the rest of us are.
I'm really glad someone said that.
It's always bothered me, just a bit, the way the phrase hero gets thrown around. It seems to take away a piece of the humanity of the person you're describing.
"You! You're a hero now! You're above and beyond all of us mortal humans! There's no way someone as great and fantastic as you could miss a mortgage payment, get divorced, or drink too much! You're beyond that!"
I guess my feelings about the phrase "hero" are summed up by the life of Ira Hayes, one of the Marines who participated in the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima. A hero for sure, but an example of the double edged sword that comes with such status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Hayes
Just doing the job
Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:36 pm
I always thought it was appropriate to seek recognition for doing your best given a set of strictly defined standards. In the same vein, I also thought it was necessary to "act" heroic at times when required. The army, and 10 years of EMS, knocked both of those ideas sideways.
Those ideas are crude thoughts on a moral imperative meant to exalt people for things done above the norm. Holding a particular set of ethical standards is okay in most day to day situations. Imposing them on other people, or attempting to otherwise force those ideas down people's throats is not good, and not in the American tradition of freedom and independence. And they are certainly not appropriate in time of war. Too many norms go out the window for a set of strict ethical boundaries to be maintained. War is a set of standards upon which the character of men is tested.
With this in mind, heroism in war is not bound by any moral traditions, cannot be found by searching for it, and appears in the most un-recognized and out of the way places one can imagine. Who remembers the guy standing in front of the tank in Tianmen Square? Was he seeking to act heroic? Was he seeking recognition for his cause or set of beliefs? I don't think so. He was working off an individual moral imperative which was made at the moment, and which may have changed since, or not even been thinking about anything at all besides the people those tanks were going to maul.
When I was at KOSH, and spent time with 4 Liaison Pilots from WWII, I was very impressed by their stories, but most impressed by their continued downplaying of their role in WWII. I was joking with one of them about being "The Legendary SGT John Smith," and after laughing about it for a number of evolutions, SGT John Smith gave me a serious look and said, "Let's leave the legend die here." These guys had no moral imperative to be heroic, to be decisive, courageous, or calm in times of duress. But in the situations they found themselves, AND THEY WERE HAIRY, they were called on numerous times to keep that head and stay above the situation when it could have gone to sh*t in a moment's time. Most of them did it successfully, and came home to relative obscurity. It took 60 years and me owning an L-5 to bring out some of the stories. Boyington got a TV show, so his stories came out sooner.
What I am saying is that there are the factors of training, situations, and outcomes. There are guys sh*tting their pants, and guys who are getting a mean look on their face and trying to go kill people, or drive all night to get supplies to people who are going to call them REMF's. And when it is all over, some of them get statues, and some have a box full of medals they don't talk about, and get teary eyed when they see a flag without saying a word to their wives about why they wake up at night. Heroism is a product of the moment, the conditions, and the background of the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.
Not to put too simple of a definition on it, but it is when a man or woman puts the welfare of those he is in charge of protecting above his or her own.
Those ideas are crude thoughts on a moral imperative meant to exalt people for things done above the norm. Holding a particular set of ethical standards is okay in most day to day situations. Imposing them on other people, or attempting to otherwise force those ideas down people's throats is not good, and not in the American tradition of freedom and independence. And they are certainly not appropriate in time of war. Too many norms go out the window for a set of strict ethical boundaries to be maintained. War is a set of standards upon which the character of men is tested.
With this in mind, heroism in war is not bound by any moral traditions, cannot be found by searching for it, and appears in the most un-recognized and out of the way places one can imagine. Who remembers the guy standing in front of the tank in Tianmen Square? Was he seeking to act heroic? Was he seeking recognition for his cause or set of beliefs? I don't think so. He was working off an individual moral imperative which was made at the moment, and which may have changed since, or not even been thinking about anything at all besides the people those tanks were going to maul.
When I was at KOSH, and spent time with 4 Liaison Pilots from WWII, I was very impressed by their stories, but most impressed by their continued downplaying of their role in WWII. I was joking with one of them about being "The Legendary SGT John Smith," and after laughing about it for a number of evolutions, SGT John Smith gave me a serious look and said, "Let's leave the legend die here." These guys had no moral imperative to be heroic, to be decisive, courageous, or calm in times of duress. But in the situations they found themselves, AND THEY WERE HAIRY, they were called on numerous times to keep that head and stay above the situation when it could have gone to sh*t in a moment's time. Most of them did it successfully, and came home to relative obscurity. It took 60 years and me owning an L-5 to bring out some of the stories. Boyington got a TV show, so his stories came out sooner.
What I am saying is that there are the factors of training, situations, and outcomes. There are guys sh*tting their pants, and guys who are getting a mean look on their face and trying to go kill people, or drive all night to get supplies to people who are going to call them REMF's. And when it is all over, some of them get statues, and some have a box full of medals they don't talk about, and get teary eyed when they see a flag without saying a word to their wives about why they wake up at night. Heroism is a product of the moment, the conditions, and the background of the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.
Not to put too simple of a definition on it, but it is when a man or woman puts the welfare of those he is in charge of protecting above his or her own.
Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:56 pm
In the English language the word AWESOME is over used. Everything is awesome. However few things described that way rise to that standard.
The term ROCKLEGEND is also over used, I think it is used ot describe anyone who has charted, not just the STONES, BEATLES, or CLAPTON. Maybe there are so many ROCKWANNBEES that simply getting on the charts qualifies you as ROCKLEGEND
HERO is another term that is improperly applied.
HERO is defined (as we would use it):
"A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life."
Substituting the term ACTS for "feats of courage or nobility of purpose".
One need consider what level of ACTS we are talking about?
Service in a war zone involves the risk of your life by simply being there by definition.
Not to belittle anyone, but flying a liason plane in WWII was hazardous, and you risked your life; BUT did it involve "feats of courage"? Aparently not since the modest pilot says it didn't.
However would singlehandedly engaging 30 German Fighters with a P-51 that was low on ammo to defend B-17s rise to that level? I don't know what the pilot said; but it won a Congressional Medal of Honor for Jim Howard.
Next question, WHO MAKES THE JUDGMENT?
Liason pilot says NOT A HERO; young man today hears his storys and says he is a HERO.
A guess would be that Jim Howard didn't think he was a HERO, but aparently CONGRESS did.
So, when you consider some of these factors, who is really a hero? Is it based on the ACTOR'S PERCEPTION or should it be BASED ON WHAT THE AUDIENCE (people who didn't perform the act) THINKS?
Mark H
The term ROCKLEGEND is also over used, I think it is used ot describe anyone who has charted, not just the STONES, BEATLES, or CLAPTON. Maybe there are so many ROCKWANNBEES that simply getting on the charts qualifies you as ROCKLEGEND
HERO is another term that is improperly applied.
HERO is defined (as we would use it):
"A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life."
Substituting the term ACTS for "feats of courage or nobility of purpose".
One need consider what level of ACTS we are talking about?
Service in a war zone involves the risk of your life by simply being there by definition.
Not to belittle anyone, but flying a liason plane in WWII was hazardous, and you risked your life; BUT did it involve "feats of courage"? Aparently not since the modest pilot says it didn't.
However would singlehandedly engaging 30 German Fighters with a P-51 that was low on ammo to defend B-17s rise to that level? I don't know what the pilot said; but it won a Congressional Medal of Honor for Jim Howard.
Next question, WHO MAKES THE JUDGMENT?
Liason pilot says NOT A HERO; young man today hears his storys and says he is a HERO.
A guess would be that Jim Howard didn't think he was a HERO, but aparently CONGRESS did.
So, when you consider some of these factors, who is really a hero? Is it based on the ACTOR'S PERCEPTION or should it be BASED ON WHAT THE AUDIENCE (people who didn't perform the act) THINKS?
Mark H
Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:03 am
I think that a hero is some one that stands up for waht is right. It may not be an easy fight, but they do it anyway. I think that a hero is not perfect. i actually like the human side of a hero rather than the media side of one. Duke Cunningham, Pappy Boyington, and others are indeed that. Are they perfect? No. But who is.
Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:37 am
I think Hero has become an overused word and I also think it gets mixed up too often with celebrity. Sadly i think Duke Cunningham is an example of this. He forgot that what he did was his job and got caught up in what he believed was his celebrity and it ruined him.
As near as i can tell, most of the WW2 combat vets consider that they did their job and that the heros are the ones who didn't come home.
As near as i can tell, most of the WW2 combat vets consider that they did their job and that the heros are the ones who didn't come home.
Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:41 am
I have to agree with mustang driver. A hero is someone who stands up for what is right. But does that person need a national crisis to do that? I think its something deeper and often quite menial.
How about a father and husband that stays with his family, working hard to make it work" ditto for a wife and mother.
How about people that CONSCIECNCOUSLY strive to be law abiding citezens 24 -7 even though its often easy and expected to go along with scoff laws?
How about people that make real effort do what they say or try to do the right thing,not because it's convenient, but because it's the right thing to do?
Sure, we all fail at a number of those types of things, but that doesn't mean we don't know real heros in our everyday lives. They just don't give medals to people like this. And that's a real shame.
How about a father and husband that stays with his family, working hard to make it work" ditto for a wife and mother.
How about people that CONSCIECNCOUSLY strive to be law abiding citezens 24 -7 even though its often easy and expected to go along with scoff laws?
How about people that make real effort do what they say or try to do the right thing,not because it's convenient, but because it's the right thing to do?
Sure, we all fail at a number of those types of things, but that doesn't mean we don't know real heros in our everyday lives. They just don't give medals to people like this. And that's a real shame.
Quotes and comments
Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:13 am
So, when you consider some of these factors, who is really a hero? Is it based on the ACTOR'S PERCEPTION or should it be BASED ON WHAT THE AUDIENCE (people who didn't perform the act) THINKS?
Good question. A nugget of knowledgehere- the AAF didn't want L-5's in the first place- they were not bombers which they knew would win the war without any infantry or invasions or more nasty sorts of classical warfare.
Not to belittle anyone, but flying a liason plane in WWII was hazardous, and you risked your life; BUT did it involve "feats of courage"? Aparently not since the modest pilot says it didn't.
The pilots are modest because that was the custom of the time- modesty in public deed. Congress recognized Jimmy Howard. He didn't toot his own horn, somebody else did, and for ends other than making a heroic example of him. More on that later.
However would singlehandedly engaging 30 German Fighters with a P-51 that was low on ammo to defend B-17s rise to that level? I don't know what the pilot said; but it won a Congressional Medal of Honor for Jim Howard.
Very brave, no question. But how did Jimmie Howard feel about it at the time? He had an airplane, there were enemy aircraft, and what else did he have to do at the time? How about,
Singlehandledly direct several squadrons of medium bombers from and L-5 to a target while under continuous enemy ground fire. Ground fire caused fire in the airplane. Passenger observer jumped, pilot rode the airplane to the ground, escaped capture and returned to friendly lines 2 days later
That was the squadron commander of the 14th Liaison Squadron, who received no medal for that episode. He was on a mission that 9th AF gave the highest priority, and flew it himself because it was so critical. So why didn't he turn around and go home when he was getting shot at? He's not around to ask, but why didn't he get a medal?
I don't want to start an argument on whether a P-51 pilot was more heroic than an L-5 pilot. But, you should realize that Liaison Pilots flew with a .45 and no armor at 90 kts in a combat zone, and courage comes to my mind. They were not flying a warbird meant for business with armor and machine guns. All the European liaison pilots were full of air medals. No CMH, but plenty of Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, and several were killed in action directing fire at an enemy firing back at them. No B-17 crews to witness the events, just infantrymen and units that didn't know what they were looking at.
As near as i can tell, most of the WW2 combat vets consider that they did their job and that the heros are the ones who didn't come home.
Dan's got it. This is what I hear constantly, and I don't think it is a sound bite the veterans picked up. Every bit of glory after that, as far as celebrity goes, was created by leadership within the audience spoken of- you, me, and the rest of the US. When you are a General trying to fight for a post-war independent air force, do you glorify the SGT pilot who is stuck supporting the infantry? No, you glorify the guy in the highest speed weapons platform to meet the means for your ends. I don't know of any incidences of L bird flying which would have rated MOH, but I would bet I will find some before I am done researching.
You are right that the audience has a lot to do with it. But what that audience hears is carefully crafted and churned out for very specific purposes. Do you think the US Army wanted Desmond Doss, conscientious objector, medic, and CMH winner, to be a poster child for recruitment? Not really. The US Army is looking for bullet launcher carrier's, not moralist people who won't carry a rifle.
Very interesting topic.
Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:26 am
I've been a firefighter for nearly 22 years, and I can say honestly that I detest the term 'hero' whenever it's applied to my field. No firefighters are heroes, we are just doing the job that we have been trained to do. Period.
Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:28 am
I believe a hero is someone who will stand up for the rights of others and the good of mankind. To me a hero has to be of higher standerd and nothing less. A hero is someone that gives up his dreams to protect others. General Doolittle is always one of my favorite heros. A man that could do anything and prove anything.
Sorry, I am not much into the human side of a hero. Are you guys talking about if like a guy that picks up a hooker or something? Then no I will not think highly of him. He has a responsiblility to be a rolemodel and should try to live to the highest standard of that.
-Nathan
Sorry, I am not much into the human side of a hero. Are you guys talking about if like a guy that picks up a hooker or something? Then no I will not think highly of him. He has a responsiblility to be a rolemodel and should try to live to the highest standard of that.
-Nathan
Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:39 am
Nathan wrote:He has a responsiblility to be a rolemodel and should try to live to the highest standard of that.
Do you seriously think that?
Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:41 am
typo...sorry. 
Last edited by Nathan on Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:43 am
Yes. I understand humans will be humans but they should keep their personnal life to themselves. I'm thinking in the way of kids here. Kids always need a hero and someone to look up to. It make better people out of them and hopefully successful lives.
Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:47 am
Isn't it Basketball Stars and NASCAR drivers, both the NBA and the France's would have you think that.
The media has destroyed the meaning of HERO.
The media has destroyed the meaning of HERO.