Every Soldier Is Not A Hero
I wish to comment about the controversy surrounding MSNBC’s Chris Hayes saying on his show Sunday that he feels “uncomfortable” calling fallen soldiers “heroes”.
For the record the following post comes from March 2006 on an old blog I use to write, but feel in light of the many thoughts about Hayes’ comment I would repost the following.
###
Our language is so often misused that I think we are losing the real meaning of certain words, to the point that we abuse them and twist the meaning of our nation’s history.
When I was younger, a superstar in the entertainment field would need to match the likes of Elvis, Sammy Davis Jr., Dolly, or Frank Sinatra. Today, if someone has a slick public relations team and nice physical characteristics such as a healthy smile with broad shoulders or busty chest (as the case may be), one can claim the title of ‘superstar’. Following that pronouncement, the person is then treated to his or her own reality television show or recording contract. In a few years they will be forgotten by the public but still were able to cajole their 15 minutes of fame.
The bottom line is, those many wannabes were never superstars, and they should not be termed as such in our culture.
Now consider the word hero and how it has been used since 9/11, and it seems like everyone these days can lay claim to the word. The stock trader that happened to go to work on time and was killed in one of the World Trade Towers was labeled a ‘hero’. The waiter in a restaurant at the top of the Towers who was tragically killed is also called a ‘hero’.
But if one only needs to show up to work on time and, as a result, die at the hands of a terrorist to be termed ‘hero’, then what do we call the firefighter who enters that same burning building with flaming jet fuel falling all around him, in an effort to reach his fellow citizens? The firefighter in this case is the true definition of the term hero and the worker who came to his office is a victim. The whole scenario is tragic but the difference in their roles is important to note and, for history’s sake, to recall accurately.
Now to the trickier topic of calling all soldiers heroes. I understand the emotional need for some to do this as it allows families to feel their child did not serve, and possibly die, in vain. In this rhetorically driven political climate, I certainly understand the political requirement that every elected official cite the word over and over while talking of soldiers. But in reality, the word hero doesn’t apply to every person just because an individual enlists and wears a uniform.
When a solider is killed by friendly fire or falls off the back-end of a supply truck and is run over, the word hero is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Sad though it is that they died, these cases resulted from situations that did not meet the definition of the word hero, which is defined as being distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. If being shot by friendly fire makes one a ‘hero,’ then what would we call the forces that stormed the beaches of Normandy?
Clearly we have become fond of the term hero for all sorts of overly nationalistic and political reasons that have ill-served both our country and our language.
I think a lot of you are missing the point. A “brave soldier” is a lot different than a “hero”. We’re twisting words and applying them to people who do not deserve the title. This is along the same lines as “every war fought by Americans is for their freedom”. It’s just not factual. Call it what you want but do not be surprised when someone else calls you on it. Who are these people really sacrificing themselves for? The people who already died? Our freedom is not in jeopardy. Sure, they attacked us killed some thousands of people. How many innocent people are we killing in our search for justice? Sadly enough it doesn’t matter to most Americans. As long as we feel satisfied in our vengeance. Where does it all stop? Who can deny that years down the road someone else will rise up to take vengeance on us for what we are doing today in search of justice? Or rather to take revenge. If we are a nation of reason and thought and freedom then I feel sorry for the world.
Dekerivers
I think you are confusing innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with G.I,.s who get killed while serving their country. The civilians are unfortunate victims who are just doing their job with no thought of serving the greater good of society.
I can see your point, Greg, in that if we call an “every day” soldier a hero, what do we call a medal of honor recipient? There are no superlatives that can adequately seperate the contributions of a d-day marine from an admin specialist in front of a desk. But as Cynthia and A Human stated, they’re all heroes! Just in different ways or on different levels. Just by swearing the oath to defend and protect, you qualify by potentially putting your life on the line to protect others.
This reminds me of a friend in my 8th grade drafting class. On one assignment he got a score of 65%. “F”. Another student got a 30%. “F”. My friend knew that it took 70% to pass, but simply could not comprehend how that other guy could get the same letter grade as he did. To you and me, the answer is simple. The is no alternative letter for extreme failure. They both just failed. Similarly, all of the soldiers, until we find a differentiating superlative, are heroes.
When it come to the office worker on 9-11, I have to agree that it would be quite a stretch to lump them in that category.
Now the reason for your post was to explain, if not defend, Chris Hayes’ controversial statement. I never heard of him making a statement like that about tower one occupants, and certainly not on a day commemorating those horrific events. Therefore I stand by my statement that he is an idiot
Or let me put it another way–if we say a hero is one who went to work as a trader on the 100th floor of one of the trade towers, then does that level of being a hero match that of a soldier. If not, then how does being shot by friendly fire make one a ‘hero,’ in an equal fashion to the forces that stormed the beaches of Normandy?
I must ask again….and I would like to think we can keep this in perspective without undue emotion…but if being shot by friendly fire makes one a ‘hero,’ then what would we call the forces that stormed the beaches of Normandy?
I was surprised to hear that Chris Hayes would make a statement like that on MSNBC. That network seems so military friendly. Rachel Maddow praises the members of the military often. I doubt that he has ever experienced any thing like military service or he wouldn’t make such statements. As a US Army veteran who served in Vietnam for 14 months in a combat unit I can say that anyone over there who died in action whether in combat or not is a hero. The soldiers that died in a helicopter crash or during a fire fight are all heroes. Most of the G.I.s in combat arms were drafted as I was. The draftees had a choice go to jail or to Canada. The ones that decided to report for duty made a decision that meant they were most likely going to be selected for infantry training after basic. Survival in an infantry unit had a low probability. The G.I.s believed that it was better to get killed early in their tour rather than later because they wouldn’t have suffer as long. The thing that kept me going was dreaming of that day that I could climb aboard that 707 back to “the world”. I managed to survive and came back home to a country that would have been happier if I hadn’t come back. No ticker tape parades down main street and certainly no heroes welcome. So if we can’t welcome the survivors back as heroes, please, let’s at least recognize those who gave everything they had to give as heroes no matter how they died.
The question I posted was about more about language than the military. So I ask again, if being shot by friendly fire makes one a ‘hero,’ then what would we call the forces that stormed the beaches of Normandy?
The point I think you are missing here is that when a person becomes a soldier (whether by choice or draft) they are accepting certain cultural situations, making it part of their psyche and committing themselves to offer their life for them. When you become a soldier you accept and trust that your nation and its leaders and values and goals are just and worthy. You affirm the major social realities as worth (if it comes to that) dying for. No soldier will be able to be in possession of all the information that leads to military decision-making. It is a position of tremendous vulnerability and reliance on the hierarchy. You commit to emotional deprivation (for the higher cause), and physical hardship to at least some degree if in Peace time and to a very abusive degree if in time of conflict.
I feel offended that people sitting in the comfort of home with a book on a fine summer day can minimize the process by which soldiers at some point must all admit “I might die, and die painfully and alone. I hope this is worth it.” And then after these types of moments, they do not run away.
Most people who scream about the “evils of guns” have never held one, never dealt with the emotional impacts of realizing that this thing I hold in my hands can easily cause immense destruction. You can be an asshole about it, or you can realize the immense personal and cultural significance of that. You can reflect upon and have a heightened awareness of the complexities and ramifications of Human impulses of aggression. Denial of the baser human instincts is NOT courage. Looking them square in the face and really asking Self “how will I respond if…” and making a real choice of what is worth fighting for, what is cowardice, how far will I personally go to protect those I love even if I come to harm myself… these are all enormous thoughts and processes to go thru. In the times of early human existence we all would experience this. Each person would be called on time and again to defend cave, hut and village from greedy aggressors.
Now we have a designated sub-group of our people to handle that for us.
You can sit at home and read your books and NEVER personally go thru that process. You may at some time yet be called upon to protect yourself and James from a home invasion or perhaps a very cruel gay-bashing incident. When I lived in Madison I knew a guy who was a psycho, he had a group of buddies who would lurk around the Club de Wash (at that time THE gay hang-out) and look for stragglers to beat the crap out of. He was never caught and those of us who lived near him were terrified of him, too terrified to report. I would report now, I have grown up, but I was young then. I also have chosen to learn to defend myself, rather than to live in fear of attack (in my case as a female, not as a gay man, but I will say that the fear and the threat are the same)
You would have deep remorse if you watched James be beaten and did nothing. Yet to choose to take the steps to be a “responder” if necessary, and to make complex decisions about when measures of force are appropriate or not, these most people avoid and get away with it.
Our soldiers do not avoid these ideas and processes. They all go thru that process. It is unpleasant and calls for courage. To have any kind of self-defense training in which you learn how to damage and kill another human is VERY weird. It is beyond sobering. Even asshole soldiers have “shorts-filling” moments in which they realize they could die or be harmed terribly. As they live the soldier life they may go onto prove themselves to NOT be heroes, as the Mei Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib soldiers did. etc.
But Average Joe Soldier, even if s/he does not see hard combat, will have to go thru physical and mental processes that most of us avoid. And they do that because they trust. They trust their culture is noble enough and will use them to Just ends. I would be scared to be in any branch of the military. I think you would too. That feeling of fear is our personal indication that such a process and affiliation has serious metaphysical and physical ramifications. I don’t think that should be downplayed.
To ask that our military budget be reasonable and that our use of force be at the highest levels of humanitarian values does not conflict with deep respect for the basic heroism of those men and women who say “if it gets so bad that our nation decides it must use force you can use me. I will go so that the fighting does not involve my Mother and brother and neighbors. Take me instead.”
There’s your heroism. What happens later in each soldier’s life and choices may negate that, but the first step is heroic. Do you know the moment in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies in which Johnny Depp is faced with an open-mouthed horrible sea beast? He steps FORWARD towards the gaping jaws and says “hello Beastie”, that is the essence of what I am talking about. Even if you think that is a silly movie, that is it right there. How would you respond if you were seriously threatened? You don’t know until you are really there. It is a deep learning experience I can tell you. People who personally commit to defend others deserve a default status of “hero” that lasts until they prove themselves unworthy by faulty actions. Otherwise we can assume they are doing SOMETHING that the rest of us are “saved” from personally having to do.
You talk like a person who has lived a very very sheltered life and takes too much for granted. One who does not question enough and drinks too much of the Kool-aid handed out by political strategists, all of whom are just slick Ad-men selling garbage the same way that other slick Ad-men sell substandard products and reality TV shows.
Don’t be so easy.