I am doing something a little different this week. I am continuing a specific thread, a theme, which is normally something I do not like to do. It is, of course, about heroes and heroism. How we view them, how we define them, why they are a necessary part of human cultures and civilizations.
I don't believe in heroes exactly. That may be because I was raised in a time where heroes were questioned as to motive, or exposed as frauds, or were denied. Paradoxically, it was also a time where heroes were practically made into saints and surrounded us. I was born soon after the end of World War II. And there were countless heroes in that war; both overseas and at home. Many of them came to be diminished in the eyes of the public.
Let's take Audie Murphy.
Murphy was a genuine war hero. One of the most decorated soldiers of WWII, his awrds included the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest award this country gives. He was not a big man. In fact, he was slight of build and short by most standards. He enlisted in the Army illegally at age 16. He had to push hard to become a combat soldier. His superiors kept trying to get him lighter, safer, duty because of his size and boyish appearance.
Murphy excelled on the battlefield. Maybe he was overcompensating. Maybe he was inherently heroic. Whatever the reason, he performed "above and beyond the call of duty" a number of times. It is clear to me that he was driven.
The interesting thing, to me, is that he could have been killed at any time during the events in which he earned his medals. Luck? Divine intervention? Whatever the reason, he avoided death (though not injury), and kept fighting and winning medals. I saw the movie, To Hell and Back (based on his autobiography of the same name), and the one thing that stayed with me was that he acted in a barely controlled rage during those acts of courage.
Someone once told me (or I read somewhere or saw in a movie) that there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity. What that means is the hero is one who does the stupid thing, placing himself in great danger, but succeeding in the task. And that is also what I learned from Audie Murphy. His anger drove him to acts of stupidity but his ability and determination turned those into feats of courage.
After the war, Murphy suffered from depression and what we now call Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome. As he battled through that, financial problems, and a period of addiction to sleeping pills, you could say he still displayed great courage. Some others did not (see Ira Hayes).
When you read about him, you learn that he was a humble man who had a strong sense of duty and responsibility to others. To me, Audie Murphy epitomized the war hero. He also showed great courage in overcoming adversity in his personal life.
Is that what a hero is?
In the 50's, when I was growing up, there were a number of popular figures seen as heroes. We had the comic book heroes: Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, and so on. I don't see Superman as a hero, though I did then. You see, Superman was invulnerable. Except for Kryptonite, nothing could harm him. And he even recovered from exposure to Kryptonite quickly once it was taken away or he was shielded from it. I don't think it's bravery if you really are as invincible as you think and bullets bounce off. Batman was much braver, I'd say, and even he had some great advantages (brought about mostly by wealth).
I think the heroes of the pop culture of the 50's tainted my viewpoint. And then, of course, there were villains who seemed to have all the qualities of the hero except the wrong motives. Lex Luthor kept coming after Superman, in spite of the fact that he could never defeat him.
You do know that Mao was (and still is) a hero to his people? Same with Fidel Castro. In the 50's, so was Stalin. I am sure that Germany saw Hitler as a hero as much, if not more, that England revered Churchill.
Is it circumstance and perspective that determine a hero?
When I was young, it was easy to recognize a hero. The picture got cloudier as I grew older.
And that is why I ask you for your help in defining the term.
A Night Unremembered
13 years ago
9 comments:
I like to believe that is where the term PERSONAL hero comes to play. A universal hero is a contradiction in terms for how could you have a Hero...without that very same Hero being a Villain to the enemy?
My father is my personal hero though many, MANY people hate him.
There is NO SUCH THING as an all encompassing hero for even what many people think of as God is flawed.
Great blog...just my taste. :)
hello douglas,
last in a series? o.k. this is good. i think you answer your own question in the first paragraph "They (heros) represent the principles the cultures holds in esteem".
but from the previous blog, paradigms change and evolve and for good reason sayeth me. i am agreed with your initial definition that a heroic act must involve self-sacrifice.(though not necessarily end in death)
as the the example you use Audie Murphy. imho, the catalyst is not as important as the action - is it stupid to run into the burning building and risk your life to save another? perhaps... but i'd rather consider a moment of bravery.
a moment where we have evolved enough to feel empathy and act accordingly.
i thought this might be more private - i had wanted to ask you why you never replied to my question about aphasia?
also as andreas felt more comfortable revealing himself an atheist here on your blog :) - i am a practicing jew, but find my "proof of god" in science.
also, in the spirit of sharing... this newly found blog forum (well new to me) gives me what i was hoping to get from FB - some time outside my head, since i have OCD and some freedom from the constant physical pain which i suffer.
dafna
wow - that was scary - it must be a bit like what it feels to say you are an atheist.
i fear after that "reveal" perhaps everything i post will be considered nutty?
Hektik, your final thought is interesting. And true, I think. You might be interested in this site:
http://heresiarch.org/index.php
Dafna, I agree the immediate catalyst is less important than the character which it affects. But there is something we often overlook about our "everyday heroes" (firemen, police, most soldiers, etc). Training and the confidence it provides. Training minimizes the risk, making the bravery less of a factor. Which begs a greater question... Can we train people to be heroes or must there be something inherent in the person? As in "born or made?"
By the way, go to my Profile and you can email me from there, if you wish.
hello douglas,
that reference to firemen, police, soldiers was inferred by you i was giving a simple metaphor.
there is an actor i enjoy marc harmon, who ran toward a burning car to extract the trapped youth inside - in a recent interview he calls it both stupid and brave.
you also made reference to the willingness of parents to sacrifice for their children.
i think the idea of training would be more appropriate if it were applied to training of the mind. none of us really know what we would do given the same situation. but some of us behave so like this in everyday life that we hope we will rise to the occasion.
one example is when i "choose a battle", put my energy towards something that seems unjust, it is not always because i will see any direct benefit... it is usually because my impact combined with the impact of others will change something that will improve the lives of others/all... eventually.
dafna
Dafna, we train the various everyday heroes to do the things needed. With enough training, two things occur:
1. The risk is reduced to almost zero because the trainee is fully prepared.
2. The heroic deed becomes a task, a part of a job.
This is why medals are given for acts "above and beyond the call of duty." Because, below that, it is simply part of the job. Those that do the jobs choose them. I see a hero as someone chosen by circumstances. A person who rises to a challenge of an unexpected situation that entails great risk and little chance (or thought) of reward.
And I think you are right about the "training of the mind". That is something I think that is included in the traditional training. And also in the cultural conditioning regarding heroes and heroism.
The impromptu hero (such as Harmon) s one who takes a greater risk precisely because he wasn't trained for such. Which, I suspect, is why he aptly described it the way he did.
By the way, you can email me at:
d_dubya@embarqmail.com
I hadn't considered Google might be PC-centric.
hello douglas,
thanks for the email.
i wouldn't discount those who choose to do jobs that involve risk for the benefit of others, training or not. i believe it a noble choice and if one single act saves one other single person that is enough.
in the other thread you post once... do i ask to much of hero? - i think sometimes you might. why only those chosen by circumstance? why not also those who chose a risky path?
mother theresa was certainly in harms way on more than one occasion?
also as a first generation american, thus narrowly avoiding army service myself, it makes me wonder if you are speaking from experience when you say training reduces the risk to nearly zero? it seems that even with training there is great risk in the three fields of service you mention.
otherwise we seem to be like minded in our definition of hero.
i'm not sure why some email links route me to a service i don't use.
dafna
Dafna, I am not exactly discounting them, I don't think. The difference might be better illustrated by the following:
A man is walking down the street and sees his neighbor's house on fire. The neighbor's daughter is shouting for help from an upstairs window. He enters the house, finds his way through the smoke, up the stairs, to the daughter's room and leads her to safety outside.
A fireman arrives, wearing his protective clothing and protective mask and filter, and enters the house with at least one other fireman following him closely and, possibly, a hose spraying down fire and smoke, goes to the upper floor and leads the daughter to safety.
You choose who took the greater risk. Who performed above and beyond the call of duty.
I served for 4 years in the Navy. We trained on what is called "damage control" which included shipboard firefighting among other things. We trained in ammunition handling and numerous safety procedures throughout that enlistment and my duty assignments. Safety becomes second nature, you rely on your training and awareness to protect you, much as the firemen (and police) do.
The email link is an HTML command called "mailto" which should trigger your default email client. It should work even for Macs, I would think.
Dafna, I am not exactly discounting them, I don't think. The difference might be better illustrated by the following:
A man is walking down the street and sees his neighbor's house on fire. The neighbor's daughter is shouting for help from an upstairs window. He enters the house, finds his way through the smoke, up the stairs, to the daughter's room and leads her to safety outside.
A fireman arrives, wearing his protective clothing and protective mask and filter, and enters the house with at least one other fireman following him closely and, possibly, a hose spraying down fire and smoke, goes to the upper floor and leads the daughter to safety.
You choose who took the greater risk. Who performed above and beyond the call of duty.
I served for 4 years in the Navy. We trained on what is called "damage control" which included shipboard firefighting among other things. We trained in ammunition handling and numerous safety procedures throughout that enlistment and my duty assignments. Safety becomes second nature, you rely on your training and awareness to protect you, much as the firemen (and police) do.
The email link is an HTML command called "mailto" which should trigger your default email client. It should work even for Macs, I would think.
Post a Comment