There was drastic flooding in the Lake District of England recently -- global warming strikes again -- and I saw Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on BBC World News, expressing condolences to the family of a local constable who was swept to his death when a bridge he was on broke under the force of the water. The policeman had evidently detected that the bridge was not in good shape, and had been directing motorists away from using it. Gordon Brown stated that Pc Barker was a hero, performing heroically when he died. I think what PC Barker was was a traffic policeman doing his duty, who died tragically in the line of duty. I really question whether he was a "hero."
Like the word awesome, I think the word hero is vastly overused these days. Every member of the military who goes off to Iraq or Afghanistan is automatically a hero. I don't buy that. What they are are soldiers (or marines, or airmen or whatever), doing the job they were hired to do. That job is an extremely difficult, dangerous one, but it is one they signed on for (if we still had the draft -- which I'm inclined to think we should bring back -- that wouldn't, of course, be the case). I don't think doing a difficult, dangerous job that you agreed to do automatically qualifies you as a hero.
While the little paperback dictionary that sits beside my desk claims that one definition of hero is 'a man who performs brave deeds,' I'm inclined to think that the brave deeds he (or she) performs should be under particularly dire circumstances, that true heroism involves performing above and beyond the normal call of duty. The job soldiers in hot spots like Iraq and Afghanistan have calls for them to be brave virtually every single day. But that's the nature of soldiering; that's what it's all about. That and following orders, which occasionally (possibly even frequently) serves as an effective substitute for bravery. The men and women who agree to do this, possibly to the death, and then go out to these god-forsaken places where they're encumbered with hot uniforms and all this heavy equipment in 106 degree heat and do it...they should certainly be honored for their efforts, and dedication to duty, we as a nation should certainly express our gratitude whenever we can, and our tax dollars should certainly be used to insure that they receive any medical care they might need as a result of their efforts, and dedication to duty.
But we shouldn't be calling them all heroes. If everyone is a hero then no one is; the word loses meaning. And my guess is, most soldiers feel that way, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
[The following is actually from my friend Clifford, who chose to email me his comment.]
In my lifetime I have known a number of men and at least two women who I would call "brave". That word "brave" is often used redundantly with the word "hero". I have seen a man run out into the midst of a heavy artillery barrage to rescue a wounded stranger and I have watched a woman face cancer to the death without complaint. Without doubt both were incredibly brave but were they heroes?
It seems to me that heroism is only the opportunity to exhibit the already existing bravery. We also have poor judgement or ignorance which some-times places a person in a position to appear as a hero. In some situations a person may simply not understand what they are getting into.
I talked to and photographed Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier in WW-II, but I did not come even close to understanding him. He seemed sane but repeatedly placed himself in the clear path of mortal danger. He was, undoubtedly, a hero but I am no closer to knowing what a "hero" is.
Post a Comment