Devaluation of the word 'heroes'

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Everybody's ages and professions are always mentioned, whether it's relevant or not (and it usually isn't).

.....and how much their house is worth...

 

[3point14]

It's not a science at all. It's an argument from personal incredulity. Because you think a normal soldier would have given up, you think his actions are extraordinary, and therefore he's a hero.

Did you not read Rifleman Gurung's own statement?



My bolding.

By your own definition, he's not a hero.

I'm afraid I'm still going to disagree with you. I rather think that the fact that this sort of thing happens so very rarely shows that most 'normal' soldiers either wouldn't do it or the situations where this might happen don't come up very often. Either way he's earnt the label (Not that I think he cares what I think) Others may have it in them to do what he has, but until they've actually done it they're perhaps heroes in potentia.

 

[3point14]

What are your thoughts on a gradient of "heroism"? You seem to regard it as a binary status, whereby once you perform above a certain undetermined level you become a hero, but before you're not.

What are your thoughts on an alternative approach whereby different actions make a person increasingly heroic, whereby, say a fireman running into a burning building to save someone (which, incidentally, is not a normal part of their job) might be heroic, but someone with no training, no knowledge of fires and no equipment doing the same would be substantially further along the "heroic" scale.

I'm going to go for binary. the OP was about how the word itself has been devalued. As I've mentioned before, I realise the world doesn't care, but I'd rather it was reserved for those acts which are really very out of the ordinary and very rare, otherwise it ends up as practically everyone whose job involves wearing a uniform and that devalues the word for those that really deserve it.

 

[gumboot]

I'm afraid I'm still going to disagree with you. I rather think that the fact that this sort of thing happens so very rarely shows that most 'normal' soldiers either wouldn't do it or the situations where this might happen don't come up very often.

What makes you think it happens "so very rarely"? And what is it you think most normal soldiers "wouldn't do"? Hold a position they were ordered to hold? Really? Every single soldier who fought in the Battle of the Bulge did exactly what this soldier did. Millions of soldiers throughout the history of warfare did this.

Either way he's earnt the label (Not that I think he cares what I think) Others may have it in them to do what he has, but until they've actually done it they're perhaps heroes in potentia.

You still haven't shown how he's done anything other than what's expected of any other soldier. You're not consistent with your definition.

If a fireman running into a burning building to save someone (which is something they're most certainly not expected to do, something that's very, very rare, and something which the fireman has to consciously choose to do) is not heroic, how can a wounded soldier holding their position in the face of attack (something which is expected of them, something that happens frequently in combat, and something which the soldier actually has no choice about doing anyway) be considered heroic?

 

[3point14]

What makes you think it happens "so very rarely"? And what is it you think most normal soldiers "wouldn't do"? Hold a position they were ordered to hold? Really? Every single soldier who fought in the Battle of the Bulge did exactly what this soldier did. Millions of soldiers throughout the history of warfare did this.

My impression is that it happens so very rarely because these cases are notable, reported and medals are awarded as a result. Maybe they do happen all the time and I only hear about a few of them, in which case there are merely more heroes. I have no idea how many soldiers would or would not do as the Gurkha did, but I'm aware of very few who have had the opportunity and fewer still that have acted in the way he did. All soldiers are, I'm sure, heroes 'in potentia' and perhaps would all do the most heroic thing in any circumstances, but until the midden hits the windmill and the act itself is actually performed then it's just potential.

You still haven't shown how he's done anything other than what's expected of any other soldier. You're not consistent with your definition.

If a fireman running into a burning building to save someone (which is something they're most certainly not expected to do, something that's very, very rare, and something which the fireman has to consciously choose to do) is not heroic, how can a wounded soldier holding their position in the face of attack (something which is expected of them, something that happens frequently in combat, and something which the soldier actually has no choice about doing anyway) be considered heroic?

A good point about the fireman. You're right, it's not expected as you say, and in that case then I rather think any fireman acting in such a way (which is probably contrary to some standing order somewhere?) might well gain the hero tag.

As I say, the couragous soldier gets to be a hero by dint of the rarity of such reports. I'm not saying they don't happen all the time, but if they do they are not reported (Or they are and I don't see them, I admit I don't go looking for them)

 

[PhantomWolf]

My impression is that it happens so very rarely because these cases are notable, reported and medals are awarded as a result. Maybe they do happen all the time and I only hear about a few of them, in which case there are merely more heroes. I have no idea how many soldiers would or would not do as the Gurkha did, but I'm aware of very few who have had the opportunity and fewer still that have acted in the way he did. All soldiers are, I'm sure, heroes 'in potentia' and perhaps would all do the most heroic thing in any circumstances, but until the midden hits the windmill and the act itself is actually performed then it's just potential

I think it happens more then you realise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chunuk_Bair

 

[3point14]

I think it happens more then you realise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chunuk_Bair

Then that means there are more heroes than I thought there were.

To be fair, there would be a lot of opportunities for heroism between 1914 and 1918, and I imagine most of them would have gone un-noticed and un-medalled (if that's a word).

 

[C_Felix]

So..uh..yeah.

I still don't think those people who were killed by pirates are heroes.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I think if he didn't know the boat was coming, he's heroic. If he did know the boat was coming, he's an idiot.

That is exactly right.


Something else-

People often consider the dramatic to be heroic. Someone who does something unusual, bold and flashy is a hero. A one time act is heroic while ten years of dedicated work aren't.

The person who is quiet, consistent and hardworking isn't a hero. Some poor couple with a mortgage, three jobs between them and an older ailing mother and three kids to support who both work their tail off for them aren't usually considered heroes.

Where is their medal?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Daftest use of the word 'Hero' I've heard recently was an Olympic runner from a few years back (can't remember his name, don't watch sports) who'd snapped a hamstring during the first race, his father ran onto the track and half carried him to help him finish the race (I think it was 100m or 400m). I can respect the fact that he wanted to finish, and I'd call it admirable, but heroic? He got quite upset when the radio presenter interviewing him suggested it was over-the-top.

 

[3point14]

Daftest use of the word 'Hero' I've heard recently was an Olympic runner from a few years back (can't remember his name, don't watch sports) who'd snapped a hamstring during the first race, his father ran onto the track and half carried him to help him finish the race (I think it was 100m or 400m). I can respect the fact that he wanted to finish, and I'd call it admirable, but heroic? He got quite upset when the radio presenter interviewing him suggested it was over-the-top.

I think he's probably failed the hero test then - If you're asked if you're a hero and you adopt a heroic pose and 'Yes. I am.' and pose for the camera, you've failed.

 

[Rasmus]

Then that means there are more heroes than I thought there were.

But it also means that you are not using the definition of hero that you supplied earlier. If you think this guy was a hero, you need to work on your defintion. The two don't match.

Personally, I don't think he was very heroic: he simply had no choice. Or rather, he had many choices: He could have let the first grenade explode and kill him, or the second, or the third. He could at any time just have curled up and allowed the enemy to kill him. He chose not to. How is that heroic?

He had no option to surrender, he couldn't run or hide, either. He could not let anyone else do the fighting in his stead because there was nobody else there. In fact, if he had given up he could have been certain only of his own death - if he alone could hold the enemy back then whoever he was guarding further back would have had the same chance, too.

 

[3point14]

But it also means that you are not using the definition of hero that you supplied earlier. If you think this guy was a hero, you need to work on your defintion. The two don't match.

Well, to be honest, it's not a description I've gone thorugh with a mental fine-tooth comb. I wasn't expecting a test.

Personally, I don't think he was very heroic: he simply had no choice. Or rather, he had many choices: He could have let the first grenade explode and kill him, or the second, or the third. He could at any time just have curled up and allowed the enemy to kill him. He chose not to. How is that heroic?

He had no option to surrender, he couldn't run or hide, either. He could not let anyone else do the fighting in his stead because there was nobody else there. In fact, if he had given up he could have been certain only of his own death - if he alone could hold the enemy back then whoever he was guarding further back would have had the same chance, too.

I see what you mean, and if forced into a corner I would rather remove the Gurkha from the 'hero' set and place him outside of it if that's the only way that we avoid labelling every single squaddie (and others in uniform) as a 'hero'. I've met a few soldiers in my time, some of them (and I do mean some, not all) really don't qualify for hero status and any definition that encompases all of them without question isn't one I can concur with.

 

[Rasmus]

Well, to be honest, it's not a description I've gone thorugh with a mental fine-tooth comb. I wasn't expecting a test.

You must be new here ....

I see what you mean, and if forced into a corner I would rather remove the Gurkha from the 'hero' set and place him outside of it if that's the only way that we avoid labelling every single squaddie (and others in uniform) as a 'hero'. I've met a few soldiers in my time, some of them (and I do mean some, not all) really don't qualify for hero status and any definition that encompases all of them without question isn't one I can concur with.

I don't really care much either way. It's a semantic question: What does it mean to be a hero? When is it legitimate to use that word?

Not being called a hero doesn't mean you can't be a fantastic guy, helpful, courageous, selfless and a dozen other great things. The Gurkha saved the lives of his mates - well done. A lot better than I probably could. (Then again, did he kill more people from the other side than he saved on his? What if he had been a German soldier against allied troops? Still heroic?)

 

[3point14]

You must be new here ....

I know! What was I thinking!

I don't really care much either way. It's a semantic question: What does it mean to be a hero? When is it legitimate to use that word?

Not being called a hero doesn't mean you can't be a fantastic guy, helpful, courageous, selfless and a dozen other great things. The Gurkha saved the lives of his mates - well done. A lot better than I probably could. (Then again, did he kill more people from the other side than he saved on his? What if he had been a German soldier against allied troops? Still heroic?)

re the bolded bit: It's getting to be that way though and this is my objection (well, it's been my objection since I read the OP, it had only vaguely crossed my mind before then) that the word become ubiquitous, and eventually every soldier, sailor, airman, nurse, copper, prison officer, fireman and everyone else will be labelled 'hero'. At that point, what do we call hawkeye?

 

[Reno]

As much as I admire the Gurkha's endurance (although I am certainly skeptical that he continued to fire for 4 hours - for one thing, it's unlikely that he had 4 hours worth of ammo readily at hand and was able to reload his weapon effectively with one hand speedily enough to continue to fire on an enemy at point blank range, and for another thing, even if he had been able to do this, the barrel on his weapon would have overheated to the point to where it almost surely became inoperative.), he was not a hero. He stood his ground because he had no other choice other than to die. So his actions were self-preservation.
Now, had he run out under enemy fire and picked up wounded comrades to carry them back to safety, like the fictional Forrest Gump did, he would have been a hero.

As it stands, the story of his heroic stand is too sketchy and full of logical holes to be deemed factual in my opinion.

 

[gumboot]

As it stands, the story of his heroic stand is too sketchy and full of logical holes to be deemed factual in my opinion.

To be awarded the Victoria Cross you have to be nominated by an officer of regimental level, with the support of at least three witnesses, at least one of which has to be an officer, I believe. Plenty of guys have missed out on VCs because there weren't enough witnesses.

If he was awarded the medal we can be pretty confident it actually happened. Also, read the actually citation for the VC or the gazetting of the incident, as it provides a more accurate representation of the event. He did not fire continually for four hours, but remained at his post engaging multiple attacks over a four hour period.

 

[Reno]

If he was awarded the medal we can be pretty confident it actually happened

No we can't.

My own grandfather gave me an account of a horrendous journey he and a few comrades undertook when they were stuck behind the enemy lines at Dunkirk. Only my grandfather and 2 others from his troop made it safely home. He recounts that afterwards, an officer who had only ever served from behind a desk in England came into the Company barracks and randomly dished out various medals from a cardboard box. My grandfather received 2 medals and says that they were not issued for anything that he had done in particular. He says that some of his comrades who did not receive anything should have, and there were others who received medals who should not have.

I understand that this is all purely anecdotal, of course, but I doubt that this anecdote has any less merit than anecdotes told at the time as 'proof' of some soldier's heroic act.

 

[gumboot]

I understand that this is all purely anecdotal, of course, but I doubt that this anecdote has any less merit than anecdotes told at the time as 'proof' of some soldier's heroic act.

The VC is treated quite differently to any other war medal.

 

[RSLancastr]

Media stories always try to use the most hyperbolic language possible in order to generate interest. Hence the inflation of anything sad to "a tragedy", anything unfortunate to "a disaster", anything sentimental and positive to "touching" and anything sentimental and negative to "heartrending". Oh, and all notable court cases are the "case of the century".

No doubt those intimately involved in the events feel the terms are appropriate, but the reading public as a whole tends towards detachment. There used to be a division between "journalism" and "yellow journalism" in whether that detachment was acknowledged or actively fought against, but that doesn't appear to be the case any more. Which is, of course, a heartrending tragic disaster.

Nominated.

Well done, TM.