What makes a "hero"?

[Rajay]

In order to avoid further "hijacking" a different thread, let me pose this question on its own; what makes a "hero"?

I was always amazed by presidents that served and how many of them I would call down right heros. Such as JFK, and George H Bush. JFK was a true hero as was his brother.

It is not my intention to challenge your opinion here; I'm just throwing these thoughts out here for discussion purposes. I'm not trying to prove one point of view over another....

I am curious as to just how (other than by means of your Hawkeye quote salutation) that you define "hero." Was George H. Bush a "hero" just because he "served" or because he was shot down and survived? Was Joe Kennedy Jr. a "hero" on the other hand just because he died in the service of his country. If that is the case, are ALL men (& women) who die in the service of their country "heroes"?

I am by NO means saying that they are not. I am just trying to understand how YOU define "hero". By way of counterpoint, I would just point out that many people might say that a "hero" is someone who goes "above and beyond" the "call of duty" and those same people might say that what George H. Bush and Joe Kennedy Jr both did was simply their "duty" at that time.

I don't know; did either of them do anything else other than or more "heroic" than the actions mentioned above? Please tell me if they did. Wasn't there some hoopla back when he ran for President that George Bush was, either at the time or maybe even "ever", the youngest naval aviator? I suppose that you could say that it was heroic to sign up "early" at an age when maybe you were not yet expected to serve (wasn't that the story?)

In Joe Kennedy Jr's case, was he a hero because he volunteered for a dangerous mission, or was it even really a dangerous mission? Yeah, something went wrong and he died as a result, but maybe it was more the result of an "accident" more so than because it was a "dangerous mission." Nominally, all he had to do was take-off the airplane, set the power & trim it for cruise, arm the warheads, and then parachute out over friendly territory. Many other combat pilots at the time probably would have given their left one to trade places with him.

[Jeff Funk]

I have simple criteria for a true hero. In my view, anyone who does the right thing in the face of possible personal harm is a hero. In the context of the military or law enforcement, they only need to be willing to put themselves in danger as part of their mission to be a hero to me. However, I also believe that those individuals who put themselves at risk of certain or near certain death for the benefit of others are a higher level of hero.

[JBoyle]

As a vet, I'm a bit uncomfortable when some of the media and public call everyone in uniform a "hero".

I wasn't a hero...yes, I honorably served my country, with all that implies (the chance of getting killed, being put in harm's way, doing what you're told, etc, etc.). I saw it as doing the job I volunteered for...and was paid for.
The heros out there were the guys that went byond that...like the dust off pilots that went repeatedly into hot LZs, and a lot of guys who have served in the last decade in the war zones.

Sure, in today's society, that's a lot more than a lot of people are willing to do, but I'd like to think "hero" means something more.

Or perhaps, it's been devalued like many other concepts and ideals in our country.

[P51Mstg]

I know that MUSTANGDRIVER loves to call anyone that ever served a HERO....... I'm much more in line with JBOYLE who understands there is a distinct difference between doing your DUTY (which may get you killed) and going beyond the call to do some thing HEROIC (IE the jumping on the grenade, going back into the burning APC to pull wounded out, etc....).

I appreciate all who have died in uniform (as Sgt Hakes used to say, "wear it properly and with honor, lots of men have seen fit to die in it")....., but sorry they are not all heroes........

Mark H

[mustangdriver]

JBoyle hit it right on. I have admiration for anyone that wears a uniform, but a uniform is just that just a job. people call us heros as well. I am not comfortable with that title. I am just working my shifts at the medevac base, providing for my family. I DO however think that anyone that goes above and beyond is a hero. Someone who does something unselfish just to save another, or help a cause. Both of these men did just that. P51mstang is also right that, i did feel that way before. That was until I got schooled a bit. Jack Cook and I had gone around here for years about Pappy Boyington, and while I admire what pappy did, I can also see Jack's point.

JFK - skippered a PT Boat "PT-109" in tha Pacific. It hit another ship, and his crew was tossed into burning water. He saved two men, and possibly more through his efforts.

George Bush is a hero because he lied about his age to get into Navy Flight school, became a TBM Avenger pilot, flew many combat missions, and when hit, tried to stay in it long enough to give his crew a chance to bail out.

These are just my opinions. If everyone is a hereo, then how do the ones that really do somehting amazing stand out. Calling them all heros cheapens it.

[muddyboots]

Before this goes too far, let me point out to you that those of you who don't think everyone in uniform is a hero are missing an important part of the equation. The fact that folks are willing to sacrifice of themselves alone is heroic. A person who has sacrificed four years of his life, with all the rotten pay and rotten food and rotten living conditions, when he could have been home enjoying his life, well, that is a hero BY DEFINITION.

I am a combat veteran. I don't say that to brag, but rather to show where my opinion comes from. It was pure luck I ever got shot at--luck of the draw. That it happened to me doesn't make me any better than any vet who served and didn't have to go, it just makes me different by way of experience and bad luck (plus some stupidity.)

Heroism isn't about what you have been through. It is about what you have done. Heroism is about sacrifice, large or small, and every person who has served has sacrificed in more than a small way. They are ipso facto heroic.

If you want to talk about the level of heroism it takes to raise your hand and pull on the boots, well, that is your business. Maybe I am "more heroic" because I happened to get stuck in combat zones a couple of times, or for something I did in those places. I did stuff that earned me medals, and had a couple thrust upon me, and teh Army said I deserved them. I don't think I do, but some people do. That's fine, I guess. It doesn't hurt me beyond being embarrassing and sort of frustrating.

But please hush up about the idea that those who serve and don't have to deploy aren't at all heroic. They are. Just ask their families, whom they miss desperately. Just ask their communities, where they could be back making cars or building houses. Just ask their preachers, to whom they speak of the fear they face and the struggles of wearing a uniform, and the cost. Then ask yourself what more makes a hero than a willingness to face fear and to sacrifice of yourself for people you don't know.

Millions of Americans have imo earned the right to be called a hero who never heard a round fired in anger.

EDIT

about duty: duty is service required. Are those who are drafted and don't want to be tehre more heroic than volunteers who AREN'T serving from duty? Nope. Are volunteers more heroic because they didn't get drafted? Nope. Forget about duty. It's a strawman. There is NO obligation to serve and all too many haven't. Those who haven't do so from fear, because they can't, because they aren't needed, because there are those who see that duty is something one aquires AFTER one enlists. Not before. ONE CHOOSES DUTY and is thus heroic, not the other way around.

The idea that the military is a job is idiocy. NO job pays so little, demands so much sacrifice, and holds such danger. Being a soldier is a sacrifice, not a job.

[Randy Haskin]

there is a distinct difference between doing your DUTY (which may get you killed) and going beyond the call to do some thing HEROIC (IE the jumping on the grenade, going back into the burning APC to pull wounded out, etc....).

I have met every living USAF Medal of Honor wearer, and every single one of them believes they were simply doing their duty.

[michaelharadon]

What makes, or doesn't make, Rosa Parks a hero/heroine?

[Rajay]

Before this goes too far,...

I think that this has been going pretty well so far. It was never my intention to set anyone off or offend anyone and I see no reason this thread should be terminated as long as people remain polite and respectful of others opinions. This is just a conversation, an "academic debate" if you will. I genuinely wanted and continue to want to hear other people's opinions - and that's all these expressions are - personal opinions. No one person is going to have the absolute and final word on something as subjective as the meaning of "hero".

That being said, I have to disagree with some of what Muddy said. I don't think that just putting on the uniform and showing up for "duty" every day is "heroic". It IS however worthy of a certain level of RESPECT over and above what the average citizen faces every day. However, like all groups of people, the experience that service men and women have while in uniform, the variety of commitment and dedication, the attitudes and outlook they have, is going to differentiate them. There ARE many people who go into military service with the conception that it is just another job; not everyone does it to do their patriotic duty. While all service men and women should be respected for their sacrifices, not all sacrifices are equal; I think that "hero" should be reserved for the cream of the crop whose sacrifice exceeds that of the common soldier, sailor, or airman.

One of the things that inspired me to ask this question was the recent issue of my alumni magazine from ERAU. One of the stories inside was about former USAF Captain Scott O'Grady, whom everyone remembers was shot down while flying an F-16 in Bosnia. The article was titled "A Hero Returns", which referred to the fact that as an alumnus, he recently came back and attended some function at the Daytona Beach campus. Everywhere his name was written (and I've seen it written this way elsewhere too), it was prefixed with "hero".

OK, Scott O'Grady put on the uniform and did his duty, maybe even when he didn't have to (or maybe he thought he did have to - for whatever reason, family pressure, a desire to fly for an airline someday, whatever) but over and above that, just what exactly did he do to distinguish himself from all of the other men and women who served at the same time he did? He got shot down behind enemy lines and he did what he had to do to save his own backside. That may be an over simplification, but my point is that there used to be a time when we celebrated pilots who had the "right stuff" and now we celebrate pilots who get shot down. That seems incongruous to me.

To his credit, though, O'Grady has always said that the “true heroes” were the SAR and other guys who risked themselves to get him out. As far as I know, he has never tried to capitalize on his "fame" and that speaks well of his character, but to me it still speaks poorly of our society that we are so bereft of good role models that we are willing to “spin” the story of anybody making a headline to make him into a “hero”. Sometimes it seems as if all of our recent “war heroes” are like the neighborhood little league T-ball champions – they all got a trophy just for showing up.

I think that does a disservice to those who paid a higher price or made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in the service of their country.

[mustangdriver]

What makes, or doesn't make, Rosa Parks a hero/heroine?

Riding a public bus in Detroit alone is heroic.

[ZRX61]

I have met every living USAF Medal of Honor wearer, and every single one of them believes they were simply doing their duty.

One told me "I was in the right place at the wrong time"

[RyanShort1]

"Greater love hath no man that this - that he lay down his life for his friends."
Now arguably to some degree EVERY military person who is in a combat zone has the possibility of doing this for their country, but when I think of guys who I consider heroes, I think of the guys who took elevated, extraordinary risks that others might have not taken in order to save others lives. I don't think you have to die to deserve the title, but those who earn the title in my book have come perilously close to it. The only other way I can think of that to me makes sense for the title is someone who comes up with a plan or action that is "out of the box" or in some way unexpected that really changes the apparent course of an important action - saving lives and whatever else.

Ryan

[fritzthefox]

'Hero' is a term that confers status: the individual so described is believed to be better than yourself in some way. We all have personal heroes, whom we find admirable because they do things or possess qualities we consider noteworthy. We also share popular heroes, who are often idolized by entire populations of people, sometimes because they are truly exceptional in some regard, but often simply because they have been portrayed as such in the media.

I think the media makes a lot of heroes. In fact, some people are pretty adroit at using the media to become self-made heroes. A lot of those heroes don't bear close scrutiny. Sometimes actually meeting a popular hero can be rather disillusioning. (And sometimes the media can turn on a hero, villainizing them as quickly as they made them.)

It is all very relative, and I'm afraid it fails to paint a very accurate picture of who these people we admire really are, or how much hand they actually had in the achievements they are credited with. Which is not only a failing of media, but of human nature, since we eat it up. We all seem to need a steady diet of heroes and villains.

Ultimately, I think any person can be a hero, or a villain. (Sometimes both, in the eyes of different people.) Their actual qualities or accomplishments are irrelevant. All that matters is how they are perceived.

As I get older, I am less impressed by heroes or villains. I see mediocrity in great men, and banality in evil ones. So much of what we all become is the byproduct of birth and circumstance that I hesitate to give more than grudging acknowledgement to anyone the crowd jeers or cheers.

I am not so interested in who the heroes and villains are now as I am in knowing which one I am, and who outnumbers the other.

[Randy Haskin]

One of the things that inspired me to ask this question was the recent issue of my alumni magazine from ERAU. One of the stories inside was about former USAF Captain Scott O'Grady, whom everyone remembers was shot down while flying an F-16 in Bosnia. The article was titled "A Hero Returns", which referred to the fact that as an alumnus, he recently came back and attended some function at the Daytona Beach campus. Everywhere his name was written (and I've seen it written this way elsewhere too), it was prefixed with "hero".

OK, Scott O'Grady put on the uniform and did his duty, maybe even when he didn't have to (or maybe he thought he did have to - for whatever reason, family pressure, a desire to fly for an airline someday, whatever) but over and above that, just what exactly did he do to distinguish himself from all of the other men and women who served at the same time he did? He got shot down behind enemy lines and he did what he had to do to save his own backside. That may be an over simplification, but my point is that there used to be a time when we celebrated pilots who had the "right stuff" and now we celebrate pilots who get shot down. That seems incongruous to me.

To his credit, though, O'Grady has always said that the “true heroes” were the SAR and other guys who risked themselves to get him out. As far as I know, he has never tried to capitalize on his "fame" and that speaks well of his character, but to me it still speaks poorly of our society that we are so bereft of good role models that we are willing to “spin” the story of anybody making a headline to make him into a “hero”.

Zulu O'Grady is considered a joke among USAF fighter pilots, and it has nothing to do with what happened in Bosnia.

He just wasn't a very good fighter pilot.

On top of that, what caused his shootdown...and his actions during his rescue...and some of the things he said and did after his rescue...all reinforced that belief.

So, not a 'hero' in anyone's book who actually knows what occurred.

[brucev]

Before this goes too far, let me point out to you that those of you who don't think everyone in uniform is a hero are missing an important part of the equation. The fact that folks are willing to sacrifice of themselves alone is heroic. A person who has sacrificed four years of his life, with all the rotten pay and rotten food and rotten living conditions, when he could have been home enjoying his life, well, that is a hero BY DEFINITION.

I am a combat veteran. I don't say that to brag, but rather to show where my opinion comes from. It was pure luck I ever got shot at--luck of the draw. That it happened to me doesn't make me any better than any vet who served and didn't have to go, it just makes me different by way of experience and bad luck (plus some stupidity.)

Heroism isn't about what you have been through. It is about what you have done. Heroism is about sacrifice, large or small, and every person who has served has sacrificed in more than a small way. They are ipso facto heroic.

If you want to talk about the level of heroism it takes to raise your hand and pull on the boots, well, that is your business. Maybe I am "more heroic" because I happened to get stuck in combat zones a couple of times, or for something I did in those places. I did stuff that earned me medals, and had a couple thrust upon me, and teh Army said I deserved them. I don't think I do, but some people do. That's fine, I guess. It doesn't hurt me beyond being embarrassing and sort of frustrating.

But please hush up about the idea that those who serve and don't have to deploy aren't at all heroic. They are. Just ask their families, whom they miss desperately. Just ask their communities, where they could be back making cars or building houses. Just ask their preachers, to whom they speak of the fear they face and the struggles of wearing a uniform, and the cost. Then ask yourself what more makes a hero than a willingness to face fear and to sacrifice of yourself for people you don't know.

Millions of Americans have imo earned the right to be called a hero who never heard a round fired in anger.

EDIT

about duty: duty is service required. Are those who are drafted and don't want to be tehre more heroic than volunteers who AREN'T serving from duty? Nope. Are volunteers more heroic because they didn't get drafted? Nope. Forget about duty. It's a strawman. There is NO obligation to serve and all too many haven't. Those who haven't do so from fear, because they can't, because they aren't needed, because there are those who see that duty is something one aquires AFTER one enlists. Not before. ONE CHOOSES DUTY and is thus heroic, not the other way around.

The idea that the military is a job is idiocy. NO job pays so little, demands so much sacrifice, and holds such danger. Being a soldier is a sacrifice, not a job.

i never thought this day would come, but that is some good posting