[onoway]

In another thread it was suggested that Sarah Palin would likely make something like $10- 20 million in the next while for a book deal, and it reminded me of a Ben Stein column someone sent me recently. He bemoaned the difference between the people who are honored and given significance in our lives today vs those of years past and suggests that standards have slipped somewhat askew. (He doesn't acknowlege such people as Rudolph Valentino when he discusses the idolatry, almost, of many pop and movie stars today...or perhaps he thought that other people of the era counterbalanced such people somehow)

So who are people's heroes today? (Aside from bridge!) Do we know too much about everyone's feet of clay to have heroes anymore? I had a hard time of thinking of anyone alive today I would classify as a hero of either gender...

[Aberlour10]

onoway, on Jul 14 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

Do we know too much about everyone's feet of clay to have heroes anymore?

We don't know enough about all these nameless heroes like the doctors & the stuff from "Medicins Sans Frontieres" for example...

Robert

[kenberg]

Ben Stein lamenting publicity seeking self-promoters? An interesting development.

If heroism means taking some risks to accomplish something worthwhile I think such people are still around. There was a recent collision on Metro, our subway system, with one train ending on top of another. As I understand it, some folks called 911 and then ran towards, not away, from the crash to see what they could do.

If the claim is that Mick Jagger (my age, approx) or Lindsey Lohan are not suitable role models well yeah. I liked Jerry Lee Lewis when I was young (I still do). I did not want to grow up to be Jerry Lee Lewis.

Celebrity role model has always been a bit of a contradiction in terms. But I think there are plenty of heroic individuals out there. When the bridge went down over the Mississippi a couple of years back the camera found and lingered on this Nordic blond waist deep in the river working on rescue. If we need a celebrity, she'll do.

[Jlall]

Jay Z

[Lobowolf]

Stallone!

[kfay]

Conor Larkin

[y66]

The Armenian guy at the local shoe repair place and the Chuck Connors look-a-like who runs the gas grill and propane place near Fairfax Circle are on my list. Those guys work harder and care more about quality than anyone I know.

Also Muhammad Ali, Arnold Palmer, Babe Didrikson, Ernest Shackleton, Roald Amundsen, Bob Hamman, Kit Woolsey, Peter Boyd, Michael Jackson (the software guy), John Woodward (math teacher), David Roberts (history prof), Fatih Akin, Andrew Sullivan, several family members (one by marriage) and many others, including a few who post on this forum and keep the spirit of bridge alive here. Needless to say, all my heroes have their flaws, except maybe the Babe.

[onoway]

hmm I guess that there may be a difference in what we each see as heroic.
There are many many people I feel a great deal of respect and admiration for but who don't make it into the "hero" category. The people in Doctors Without Borders organization who are out in the field - absolutely I would agree they are heroes (but I don't know who any of them are).

Many people do heroic things at one time or another..does that make then heroes for all time? Or does it have to be more than an isolated event? Someone like Mother Teresa is surely in a different category than someone who rises to the occassion in an emergency? I don't know...it seems that many people don't agree.
So perhaps the first question should have been what defines a person as a hero?

[helene_t]

My PhD supervisor Koos Zwinderman.

My brother.

Richard Dawkins. Susan Blackmore. Stephen Pinker. Daniel Denett.

The archbishop of Canterbury, and Desmond Tutu. (Gotta mention a couple of revs as a counterweight to Dawkins).

Angela Merkel (gotta mention a conservative politician since Lobowolf has decided I am a neocon )

Sorry no sports people or artists.

[Trinidad]

Mikhail Gorbatsjov, for deciding single handedly that the cold war should stop and finding a way to actually stop it.

My fifth grade teacher and my high school chemistry teacher for teaching me the value of integrity.

My father for his ability to handle difficult situations, his sharp insight and complete lack of selfishness.

Rik

[Aberlour10]

helene_t, on Jul 15 2009, 03:48 AM, said:

Angela Merkel (gotta mention a conservative politician since Lobowolf has decided I am a neocon   )

Angela is like a chameleon. Yesterday conservative, today sozial-democratic, sometimes liberal, often anti-neoliberal, always vaguely. she is masterin of conformity with current public opinion. Any other politican in Germany would be incredible with such a stance, Angela smiles , leads in all possible rankings and will win the next elections by far.

Robert

[kenberg]

As Pam says, we can have different views of how to apply the word "hero" Mother Teresa is a case in point. Not only am I not like Mother Teresa, I don't wish to be like Mother Teresa. If a grandchild showed interest in such a life I would hope (s)he would reconsider. I guess when I think of heroism I think of actions where I might say "If confronted with such a situation, I hope I would be up to acting like that".


I imagine the world is a better place because of Mother Teresa. We could probably all agree on that. Maybe placing people in boxes labeled "hero" or "not hero" leads to unnecessary semantic quarrels.

[jjbrr]

jlall

[mikeh]

I guess it depends on what we mean by a hero. I think that the term has lost much of the meaning that I thought it had when I was much younger.

To me, being a hero means exposing oneself to unnecessary risk in order to do something primarily, if not exclusively, for the benefit of others.

Based on that definition, no actor or professional sports figure is likely to be a hero.

Nor is someone who has the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and thereby involuntarily being injured or killed.

Some, but not many, political figures warrant the term: Nelson Mandela is perhaps the classic figure.. since, while he eventually attained power, his early activities and suffering came in a context in which it would have been fanciful to argue that he was acting in his self-interest. Ghandi, to the extent that he risked prosecution, imprisonment, and (eventually) assasination seems to have been selfless and therefore meets the definition I grew up with.

Maybe Gorbachev... but while he spoke out for some reform of the Soviet system, I don't think that he did so for heroic reasons, nor did he risk much, if anything, personally... I mean, he was in charge when he acted... Yeltsin, otoh, despite his many failings, appears to have acted heroically when he mounted a tank and helped spur resistance to an anti-democratic coup.

I suspect that most people whom I would view as being heroic will be largely unknown to the general public. The person who dives into a river to try to rescue someone drowning or trapped in a submerged car. The person who comes, unsolicited, to the aid of the victim of an armed mugging... we had one young man die when he did this.. and I am sure that this type of thing happens in larger cities more often than it does in my area. The doctors and nurses who volunteer in war zones.

Unfortunately, the media now confuse celebrity with character... talent with personality... success with integrity. And, when a nation is at war, there is a powerful trend towards characterizing all members of the armed forces as 'heroes'.... altho I find it strange that the relatively small (but still obscene) number of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are all described as 'heroes' when the far, far larger number of casualties in the Vietnam war were not usually so described, if memory serves. I am sure that many of the current victims, and their colleagues, have acted heroically, but surely most of them were simply victims... firstly of the system that sent them there, and then of the people who made, planted and detonated the IED or whatever else caused the casualty?

The debasement of the term is similar, tho worse than, the debasement of the term 'star' to denote a particularly skilled member of a professional sports team. When I was a kid, few players were considered 'stars'. Now, so many players are 'star' players, that we have to have the 'superstar' category.

Of course, kids have 'superheroes' too.

[jdonn]

Erik von Markovik, aka 'Mystery'.

[ArtK78]

There was a time when I would have described John McCain as a hero, despite my disagreement with his politics. But then one gets into a discussion of whether the term hero is permanent or whether one can lose that distinction.

Personally, I lost a lot of respect for John McCain when he endorsed George W. Bush for president after the dirty tricks done to McCain in the South Carolina primary by the Bush people (and you can use a small "b" for Bush if you like).

[andrei]

Aberlour10, on Jul 14 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

We don't know enough about all these nameless heroes like the doctors & the stuff from "Medicins Sans Frontieres" for example...

Robert

I think we should know their opinion about George W Bush before naming them "heroes" ...

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Jul 15 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

And, when a nation is at war, there is a powerful trend towards characterizing all members of the armed forces as 'heroes'.... altho I find it strange that the relatively small (but still obscene) number of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are all described as 'heroes' when the far, far larger number of casualties in the Vietnam war were not usually so described, if memory serves. I am sure that many of the current victims, and their colleagues, have acted heroically, but surely most of them were simply victims... firstly of the system that sent them there, and then of the people who made, planted and detonated the IED or whatever else caused the casualty?

Operating under your definition, with respect to Iraq/Afghanistan casualties, it seems perfectly fitting; surely, voluntarily enlistment in the military during wartime is exposing oneself to unnecessary risk. The only question, then, would be each one's primary motive for enlisting. In fact, given the risk that is inherent in the enlistment, I think your definition would apply to the non-casualties, as well - at least the ones motivated by a desire to benefit others.

[TimG]

mikeh, on Jul 15 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

To me, being a hero means exposing oneself to unnecessary risk in order to do something primarily, if not exclusively, for the benefit of others.

I would quibble with this on two counts:

1) I'm not sure of the benefit of qualifying risk with "unnecessary"; and

2) I would include "sacrificing" along with "exposing oneself to risk". Someone who sacrifices income in order to make a difference in the community, as in someone quitting a high paying job and taking a lower paying teaching position because they think they can make a difference in the lives of children would qualify as a hero in my opinion. Or, at least they are doing something heroic.

[mikeh]

TimG, on Jul 15 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 15 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

To me, being a hero means exposing oneself to unnecessary risk in order to do something primarily, if not exclusively, for the benefit of others.

I would quibble with this on two counts:

1) I'm not sure of the benefit of qualifying risk with "unnecessary"; and

2) I would include "sacrificing" along with "exposing oneself to risk". Someone who sacrifices income in order to make a difference in the community, as in someone quitting a high paying job and taking a lower paying teaching position because they think they can make a difference in the lives of children would qualify as a hero in my opinion. Or, at least they are doing something heroic.

I understand your point... I don't agree, but that is because of my (admittedly narrow) definition of heroism. It doesn't include acts of economic altruism....to me, heroism is a particular subset of characteristics that we, as a society, find admirable... there are many, many other subsets, and one of my thoughts was that the media, in particular, dumbs down the subtleties of language when it uses terms such as 'hero' when the subject exhibits admirable but non-heroic characteristics.

A baseball player who hits a game-winning home run in a critical game shows talent and concentration worthy of esteem, if professional sports is something you value, but he isn't acting heroically.

Nor, imo, is a teacher who consciously rejects a comfortable job in a rich suburb to work in an inner city school in a major US city. Admirable, maybe even courageous, and a worthy role model, but not heroic.

The language evolves, and maybe I should allow my use of the term to evolve with it.. but for now I fight a possibly misguided fight against what I see as the dumbing down of language. As we lose nuances in language, surely we lose nuances in thinking as well?

I am NOT accusing anyone here of dumbing down language or of being dumb As I say, the distinction I draw may well no longer be valid, and it is I who is out of step.