Every Soldier Is Not A Hero
Published March 27, 2006
Our language is so often misused that I think we are losing the real meaning of certain words, to the point that we abuse them and twist the meaning of our nation's history.
When I was younger, a superstar in the entertainment field would need to match the likes of Elvis, Sammy Davis Jr., Dolly, or Frank Sinatra. Today, if someone has a slick public relations team and nice physical characteristics such as a healthy smile with broad shoulders or busty chest (as the case may be), one can claim the title of 'superstar'. Following that pronouncement, the person is then treated to his or her own reality television show or recording contract. In a few years they will be forgotten by the public but still were able to cajole their 15 minutes of fame.
The bottom line is, those many wannabes were never superstars, and they should not be termed as such in our culture.
Now consider the word hero and how it has been used since 9/11, and it seems like everyone these days can lay claim to the word. The stock trader that happened to go to work on time and was killed in one of the World Trade Towers was labeled a 'hero'. The waiter in a restaurant at the top of the Towers who was tragically killed is also called a 'hero'.
But if one only needs to show up to work on time and, as a result, die at the hands of a terrorist to be termed 'hero', then what do we call the firefighter who enters that same burning building with flaming jet fuel falling all around him, in an effort to reach his fellow citizens? The firefighter in this case is the true definition of the term hero and the worker who came to his office is a victim. The whole scenario is tragic but the difference in their roles is important to note and, for history's sake, to recall accurately.
Now to the trickier topic of calling all soldiers heroes. I understand the emotional need for some to do this as it allows families to feel their child did not serve, and possibly die, in vain. In this rhetorically driven political climate, I certainly understand the political requirement that every elected official cite the word over and over while talking of soldiers. But in reality, the word hero doesn't apply to every person just because an individual enlists and wears a uniform.
When a solider is killed by friendly fire or falls off the back end of a supply truck and is run over, the word hero is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Sad though it is that they died, these cases resulted from situations that did not meet the definition of the word hero, which is defined as being distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. If being shot by friendly fire makes one a 'hero,' then what would we call the forces that stormed the beaches of Normandy?
Clearly we have become fond of the term hero for all sorts of overly nationalistic and political reasons that have ill-served both our country and our language.
- Every Soldier Is Not A Hero
- Published: March 27, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Culture: Media, Culture: History, Culture: Education, Culture: Society, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: allendrury
- allendrury's BC Writer page
- allendrury's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Why would cause of death define hero status? The business man getting killed in the trade center should not be called a hero, but a soldier run over by a truck or gunned down by friendly fire, should be. If a WTC fireman were hit by a truck the week following, woul dhe not be a hero, because he was killed by a truck? No. He remains a hero just the same. A hero is someone putting their own well being at risk for the good of others. Just because doing that is pretty much a soliders very job, shouldn't cheapen the choices he has made for his life. The soldier gunned down by friendly fire, wasn't there on vaction, or try out the local restaurants. he was there to help people, to change the world, and to uphold what he considered right, and he consistantly and willing put his life on the line to do so. Whether you agree with the war or the views of those fighitng in it, while you sit comfortably in the saftey of your living room or office philosophising, the fact is that these people are taking up arms, and putting themselves in the line of fire, and risking their own survival, to proctect and uphold what they believe in. And that, is a hero.
The soldier is a hero in at least one sense, because at some point he made the conscious decision to put his life at risk for the benefit of others. That is an inherently heroic decision. He may not end up being an Audie Murphy or Alvin York and engage in extreme acts of heroism, but that makes him no less of a hero in a smaller sense just for choosing to do what he does.
Dave
Incidentally, in calculating US soldier deaths, given the young ages of the soldiers, one should first subtract the number of the troops that would have died here in the US anyway [car wrecks, bizarre tricks that backfire, etc]. I bet the 3,000 would go down quite a bit.
Thomas, we agree.
I thought it shameful the furor over Maher's comments.
I differ in that all these soldiers 'volunteered' to be parts of the military. Given that a large segment of the military comes from lower economic demographics and therefore have fewer alternative avenues for work, be they professional opportunities or college and other advanced educational courses, one cannot say they are truly volunteers. The military, sadly, is the only route for some segments of our society. We do not have a rich man's army. The only role rich men have in the military would be in the formation of military strategy and of course starting the conflicts.
"The soldier is a hero in at least one sense, because at some point he made the conscious decision to put his life at risk for the benefit of others. That is an inherently heroic decision."
And then there are those who denigrate those heroic sacrifices by equating traffic fatalities to being killed in combat in order to justify their "support" for the invasion/occupation...
Regarding #5, in the context of #8. What MCH is referring to is the fact which I once pointed out that the level of traffic fatalities in the same age groups in the US is similar to the number of fatalities in combat in Iraq for those age groups. Going to Iraq saves them from the risks of driving, but exposes them to different risks.
MCH, of course thinks that this is the same as minimizing their deaths, when in fact it's just a statistical comparison.
Dave
In reference to the misuse and overuse of the words "hero" and "courage" and the like, the problem is that there is a general lack of vocabulary. People don't even realize how they are misusing the English language. At one time poor grammar and poor vocabulary may have been limited to select groups, but now, it's prevalent even in mainstream media.
btw.....maybe it's true that all soldiers are not heroes, but in my book, most are. it doesn't matter that the majority of those serving in the military may come from lower economic demographics. that fact alone does not diminish the sacrifice it takes to serve in the military.
I'd suggest that a soldier who goes into battle, whether it truly volunteer or volunteer due to economic circumstance, deserves to be called "brave." "Hero" is something a little different.
One can be brave, but not necessarily a hero.
Chantal,
My better half teaches foreign language (French and Spanish) at UW-Madison where the first year students' start with almost a total lack of ability to define a verb, adjective, and adverb. It so bad that a brush up session has to be held before anything else can happen! Our primary educational system does not produce the quality that our tax dollars would lead one to suggest it should.
In addition I think the internet (though I love the super highway) is also to blame. People write short messages without thought to grammar and style and that carries over eventually into writing papers and exams. I would go further and suggest that basic conversation is also changing in homes since everyone has their favorite piece of technology to wall them off from others. Some have video games or I-pods, others computers and DVD's. The art of conversation is devolving.
Finally our home is a place where books still are the real way to be entertained, but I realize that this too is no longer the case for most families. This trend has also brought us to the place where out vocabulary is second rate at best and our nations grammar often is quite horrible.
Allen.....excellent point. TV, the internet, video games, etc have all replaced the "family conversation" far too often, which is why my husband and i try to set good examples for our kids by letting them see us read books and the newspaper on a regular basis, and we often take "family trips" to the local library and to bookstores.
the love of books is lost among too many children, and it's parents that are to blame. teachers can push their students to read only so far, it's up to parents to provide an environment thats conducive to reading and learning.
Chantal,
Wish we had a nation of parents like you and your partner!
I came from a home of books, newspapers, and dinner time conversations and togetherness. It is a winning formula.
Thank you for postings on this topic!
"And then there are those who denigrate those heroic sacrifices by equating traffic fatalities to being killed in combat in order to justify their "support" for the invasion/occupation..."
and then there are those that denigrate the military by saying it's nothing but sucking on the government tit!
#16 would be a whole new topic, that being the waste and fraud in the Defense Department. But at least the economy will be aided in some ways by the war as more VA hospitals will require added staff and more long-term care units will need to be running at a higher pace with all the tragic cases from the Iraq war/civil war.
good post. Another misused word in the wake of 9/11 is tragedy. September 11 was a massacre or an atrocity even; The tsunami deaths were a tragedy
"#16 would be a whole new topic, that being the waste and fraud in the Defense Department. But at least the economy will be aided in some ways by the war as more VA hospitals will require added staff and more long-term care units will need to be running at a higher pace with all the tragic cases from the Iraq war/civil war."
Dittos, allendrury...17,000 wounded so far plus another 50,000-plus with PTSD (and counting). [Edited]
Or watch NCAA games while at work too..! (though the office pools are often worth the effort)
It didn't take courage to fly a plane into a skyscraper, it took arrogance and fanaticism.
The idea that an individual has a right to take the innocent lives of others based on nothing more than an irrational "idea" is the height of arrogance. It has nothing to do with justice or being "right."
The most fundatmental human right is the right to life. That is rational and God-given. It is the basis for every Constitutional protection that is supposed to be active for every American citizen.
The people who flew the plane into that skyscraper are murderers and they are in hell.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/45581)
Very true. Many words have lost their meaning. We live in a society where emotion trumps cold reason.
For instance, consider "courage." Villains -- terrorists, enemy soliders, etc. -- are as capable of courage as the good guys.
But look at the uproar when Bill Maher observed that it took more courage to fly a plane into a skyscraper than to fire a missle from several miles away. An obviously correct statement, and a correct usage of the word "courage." But what uproar ensued! For we must always call bad guys "cowardly," whatever their actions, and good guys "courageous" whatever they do.