Hero’s - is the term being overused?

[user27357]

I think it only takes one "heroic" facet of a multifaceted personality to earn the name and respect for being a hero.

I know total jackasses that have followed their sense of duty into fire to save a person. I followed mine up ladders, under smoke, onto crash scenes and even underwater. With so many similar experiences and ideals in common with the jackass firefighters I know, should I get a saddle?

If you leave a place of safety to enter a place of danger to benefit another person, you have crossed into hero territory. The people that could be home, collecting unemployment or welfare or just taking in roommates and selling possessions to avoid getting COVID but instead go out and stock shelves and deliver the amazon packages are worthy of being called heroes. I call the health care workers on the frontlines of any war angels, and we have angels among us.

No, using the word a lot doesn't cheapen it. When there are a lot of heroes you will hear the word a lot.

 

[osiris]

I missed this thread. So many good points but I haven’t had enough sleep to write anything coherent. Cue Arnie.

I’ll be back...

 

[whiteraven]

our job doesn't make you a hero. Your actions make you a hero. Heroes are all around us, but they're not necessarily the ones who are constantly called heroes.

So agree with this!

I hate to say it, but I am very put-off by all the hero talk. From the dictionary: a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

*shrug*

 

[osiris]

So for me heroes is a really interesting general topic, because of the mythological origins of the word and the stories. If that’s going too far off the scope of the thread I apologise :roflmao:
I’ll try and make it fit together ;)

Greek heroes were that mixed birth of human/god, right?, so they were gifted the supernatural powers that allowed them to be the protectors and defenders that the name has come to mean. So the half human half god status of the Greek heroes allowed them to struggle with the challenges of humanity with the potential to fail as well as prosper. Eventually they overcome those challenges, usually despite their noticeable human flaws, demonstrating strength, courage, loyalty and other highly prized virtues along the way.

They were looked up to by humans as a source of inspiration, an ideal to attain; and likewise (sometimes begrudgingly) cheered on by the gods.

So in modern times the word hero has obviously gained popularity and still echoes those original ideals. The life of the MCU in the last decade or so has heightened its use too I guess. I’ve noticed in the UK that the word is used for troops more readily now than it was in the past. During wars and times of national service, serving your country was seen as more commonplace and some people have already mentioned (as they shrug) “it’s a job”.

My brother from another mother serves. Toughest man I know. He doesn’t talk about them, but for sure the acts he has carried out are heroic by many people’s standards. No way would he class them as that though, and it seems so few who serve ever do.

The awarding of the VC or GC is perhaps an indication of how much bravery constitutes actual heroism or valour in modern (British) military. I had to look up the numbers because I didn’t know them, but the George Cross has been awarded just over 400 times since the Second World War and the Victoria Cross just 15 times. So not an every day occurrence even in the midst of many men and women going above and beyond. Special ops aren’t part of those numbers either because they get their own awards.

But yeah, these guys are flawed. Human. Make mistakes. Can be bullies or hurt people. That’s the human condition and even saints do it (and although I can’t imagine Mother Theresa losing her temper, I bet she had flaws just not comparable to my monumental PSTD screw ups!).

So if it’s not the job, and not the character trait, then where do we pin it? A father can be a hero to his son, or a civil rights leader a hero to their race, but like the previous examples not everyone will agree with those either. Same for key workers and front line medical staff - what they are doing takes extreme bravery to face every day, but you could use the example that the medics dealing with the African Ebola outbreak weren’t loudly publicised as heroes.
For governments it’s also always good PR to praise heroes rather than focus on institutional failings.

Perhaps the struggle to overcome those challenges of humanity (yep, back to the Greeks), matters most then.
If overusing the term hero makes it lose its power or meaning maybe we need a whole new definition or even word for this modern touchy-feely era?

*******
Jeez it’s like I’m writing a thesis.
Sorry if too much. I liked thinking about this though so thank you for indulging me (if you haven’t just skipped my comment!). Brain feels less PTSD broken when I do some actual thinking ;)

 

[Invisible Fire]

Sorry if too much. I liked thinking about this though so thank you for indulging me (if you haven’t just skipped my comment!). Brain feels less PTSD broken when I do some actual thinking ;)

I didn't skip your comment :). I appreciate your insight. My opinion on this subject has changed since my original post and I have discovered some things about myself. Thanks for you post

 

[user27357]

My opinion on this subject has changed since my original post

The Carnegie Medal is given to people who risk their lives while saving or attempting to save the lives of others

I recently heard an NPR segment on the award, one of the takeaways was that it isn't hard to find candidates, the difficulty is in sorting and picking the winners. There are a lot of people that will do what is necessary to save life, more than I had imagined.

A psych professor I had taught that there was no true altruism, all acts were for our own benefit and even a "heroic" act was in some way on some level self-serving. He believed that people could be taught to respond to danger in preparation for war or duty, but it was unnatural and wouldn't happen without instilling a sense of reward of some kind, usually peer pressure and acceptance in a group, pretty base-level human motives.

I can convince myself that his theory might be true, and I can see evidence that it isn't. It defies a hard/fast definition. There are too many reasons that a person shouldn't try to save life if it endangers their own, and too many examples of it that defy that logic.

I have to say I strongly disagree with his blanket statement about heroic actions, but I think ALL gross analogies are incorrect ;)

I want to ask you, how has your opinion been changed since the OP?

 

[Invisible Fire]

I want to ask you, how has your opinion been changed since the OP?

I still think that mean, abusive people are called heroes and that although they may have done something heroic, I would not call them heroes.

I don't mind it as a thank you to people. Overused sure, maybe, but trying for thank you is kinda nice.

I'm also trying to remember 'hero' is what sums up the good & worth being qualities. Not just to kids either. So hell yeah to supporting & appreciating those qualities proper. Good morale & chutzpah build up. Totally needed, especially when people are frightened.

I guess where my view has changed is what Ronin said at the start that to use the term in a time to help bring something positive is ok.

If you leave a place of safety to enter a place of danger to benefit another person, you have crossed into hero territory. The people that could be home, collecting unemployment or welfare or just taking in roommates and selling possessions to avoid getting COVID but instead go out and stock shelves and deliver the amazon packages are worthy of being called heroes. I call the health care workers on the frontlines of any war angels, and we have angels among us.

First of all I want to say that I have a lot of respect for all of the people who have been working since this began but I see now where it is appropriate to use the term Hero in these situations.


I think I struggle with wanting to be on my soap box. I want it to be known to those that have hurt people that I have no respect for you. I get caught up in the anger and lose site of things. It isn't always about those who hurt me. I am learning

 

[whiteraven]

A psych professor I had taught that there was no true altruism, all acts were for our own benefit and even a "heroic" act was in some way on some level self-serving.

I heard this from someone, as well. I can't remember if it was in school or from a friend in discussion. I think many if not most acts are self-serving, even in the vaguest sense. I have seen people do some things, though, not because they were being paid or expected to do them, but because they truly were thinking of others. Running into a burning building to save a stranger is an example that comes to mind.

First of all I want to say that I have a lot of respect for all of the people who have been working since this began but I see now where it is appropriate to use the term Hero in these situations.

Hm...I'm still not seeing it.

 

[user27357]

Hm...I'm still not seeing it.

I think I am. I think I get it.

I am similar in my lack of adoration for some of the more zealous religions out there. One in particular.

An example is my reluctance to use of the term "hero" or "angel" as many use it to describe the people that volunteer at hospitals, helping to comfort the sick and hold the hands of people who benefit from having someone that will give their time to show them some support.
If they are truly there to offer comfort, I guess I have to at least thank them.

But:

From personal experience I have seen the other side of the veil, I know that some churches' only real growth is happening overseas, and without their US churches providing funding they won't have that and will diminish and fail to exist. Their members gave money, died and left money, but didn't convert their own children. They are taught how to preach to the infirm and convert people to the church in a way that most people see as a positive thing, saving souls and the like. I firmly believe that at some level they are in fact salespeople, trying to prey on the hopes of people that otherwise may be hopeless. Part of the end of life is grief, part of grief is bargaining, part of bargaining can be a show of faith, in an envelope, delivered to the church.

It is hard for me to describe these people as heroes overall, I suspect most may be worthy of the term, but because I have seen with my own eyes how convoluted the acts of some churches are, I just can't use the word.

Once, in an opiate induced state, I verbally chased one from my hospital room. I should have known better, the nurses were pissed. Oops. If I refrain from calling them heroes AND don't allow myself to call them Pharisees or money-grubbers, can we all get along?

 

[LuckiLee]

Doing the right thing, even though no one is watching.

 

[user27357]

Doing the right thing, even though no one is watching.

Thats character. Heroes may have character, people of character aren't all heroes. I agree, thats a high aspiration and something I seek in others, but it won't get you on the list of possible recipients of a medal. It's all semantics. I have heard the test you refer to as being a test of character, but not heroism.

 

[whiteraven]

people of character aren't all heroes.

Yeah, agree.