What makes someone a hero?
It seems like it's a simple question, but MSNBC host Chris Hayes caused a firestorm when he said on Memorial Day weekend that he was uncomfortable calling people heroes just because they served in the military.
"Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word 'hero'? I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war," Hayes said Sunday on MSNBC. "I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect the memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that."
Hayes' remarks immediately sparked a backlash, with some saying it was inappropriate to say such things about those putting their lives on the line to fight for their country.
Hayes issued an apology Monday, saying he understood why people were angry that someone who had never served or dealt with the cost of wars would make such a statement. His apology reads:
"On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word 'hero' to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.
"As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.
"But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry."
Hayes' remarks beg the question: Who exactly is a hero? We'd like to hear from you. We'd like you to sound off in the comments below or hit the button below to send a video comment to iReport. Do you think Hayes was out of line in his comments? Do you understand what he was saying?
Must you have served in combat to be a hero? Does enlisting alone make you one? Should that word be reserved for the military? Or does it apply to people who put themselves above others?
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Wow, I am sickened at all the pathetic anti-military, America-hating, disgusting Lefties...
They cry and complain (and look down on those who serve) that our "military industrial complex is so evilllll...but those of us who live in reality, without all the rainbows and unicorn farts (you know there is such a thing called EVIL in this world...whether we choose to acknowledge it or not) have great respect for anyone who willingly joins the military for this country.
Without them, it would be you scrawny little Leftist commies trying to fight...and we'd be SOL.
God bless our HEROES in the military!
oh you are so funny. american hating commies indeed, lol.
please point to any part of this guy's comments that said he had no respect for those that serve. I'll wait.
A "hero" is someone that takes a big risk in order to help another person, when not obligated to do so, i.e. beyond what duty requires. There are different levels of heroism. An average corporate worker is being heroic to some extent if she knowingly puts her career at risk in order to stand up and defend a customer or colleague she thinks is being illegally exploited...she could simply say nothing to avoid any risk. Even a politician that takes unusual risks to his career in order to help the country, especially when the effort is likely to fail and lead to being voted out for failure, is being heroic to a some degree...he or she could instead do the politically safe thing and punt the problem to some future person. However, those that knowingly sign up for dangerous jobs with the police, fire department, and the military are heroic to a higher level because they are risking their very lives for the public good...they could choose to seek different jobs that are safer and pay more. But even the duties of dangerous jobs don't require people to take on exceptional and obvious risks to save another person...rushing into an inferno to save a person that may have been dead anyway, or volunteering to run through a storm of bullets to retrieve a wounded person; this is going beyond duty, and still there are some that do it, meanwhile the majority would only do what was reasonable and rightly say "we did our best." Those few that take on near-certain death to help another, going beyond duty, particularly in the service of their community or country, or in a way that inspires the nation, are our brightest national heroes.
The thing is, he's absolutely correct, we use the term "hero" far too often. Military, police and firemen are all called "heroes" even if they've never actually done anything heroic their entire careers. It cheapens the term. There are people out there who have done truly heroic things, they should be called out as heroes. Simply putting on a uniform should not qualify for such praise
Is Oprah's fault. Each time she talk about somebody doing something great she called them a hero: "you are a hero, he is a hero, everybody is a hero". Like giving golden stars to every kid in the classroom because they finish a task, regardless how good or bad they did.
A Hero has to risk his life. Being in a risky place is not enough. When recipient of Medal of Honor Giunta went to rescue his fellow soldiers he was a hero. What about the guys that were refusing to go and help those soldiers? were they heroes because they were in Afghanistan? NO. They should be put in jail for being cowards.
Chris Hayes was correct on his initial statement. I don't get why he had to apologize. I read some outrageous comments and I'm sure they come from the Right, and their goal is to kick Chris because he is a good guy on the Left side of things. There is no real outrage. Is like in Bush times calling traitor to anybody that questioned the Iraq War. See how far those actions took the whole country in the wrong direction.
"Being in a risky place is not enough." – Isn't that risking your life though? I agree with you mostly, but I don't get how going to a forward militarized zone in combat isn't "risking your life"
If you served int he military, I believe you should be accorded tremendous respect. However, in my personal opinion, the term "hero" should be reserved for those who have performed exceptional acts of bravery. Otherwise, it's a bit disingenuous when you call those soldiers heroes when you call a soldier who does clerical work and may not have seen any action at all a hero too.
One thing is obvious – television hosts are not heroes ever ever ever.
and none claim to be.
Unless they are veterans. Then they are automatically granted hero status. Hey, I'm just following the rules of the game here....
As a veteran, I agree with Chris Hayes. Service does not equate to heroism. We through that word around so much that it has come to be meaningless. Sports heroes? Really? We have victims as heroes, police as heroes, doctors as heroes, electricians during hurricane outages as heroes – does the career choice equate to heroism? No, calling someone a "hero" needs to mean something. People should not be outraged as what he said – he is asking a question and his thoughts and comments deserve responsible and respectable responses. Be respectable in any comments and you, too , can be a hero.
Well said.
Well technically, the host had it right from the beginning. If anyone goes to webster.com and looks up the various definitions of hero, they can see that it does not include ALL military. It would be reserved for military officers that show courage or are considered legendary. I don't think it always shows courage to join the military. Heck probably 1/3rd of the military were probably uneducated civilians going in with little other options in life (hardly courageous). Those that serve and fight and care, take a walk towards the heroic in my opinion. I think this reporter wasn't too far off. I hate that he had to apologize but I suppose we want Mr. AWOL or temporary duty checking water quality to have equal share of the hero definition.......pretty sad.
sounds like civilian problems.....
I'd rather my kids growing up idolizing these men and women than idiot athletes and pop stars.
thank you for making that point!
And WHY are those the only options?
I feel the same way – we have reduced the value and meaning of the word hero by applying it to anyone who just puts on a uniform. My view is that being in the military is a job, and just like any other job it makes demands on people. Those demands cross a line into the heroic at times of crisis and then I'm happy to use the word, and apply that same word to police, fire, other emergency workers and plain old folks that just step in at a critical time. Conservatives/Republicans are creating a handout state of our people in uniform, and calling all of them heroes just cheapens the reality of their working contribution to the country.
I'm happy to praise those who have suffered and died defending the country, but for all the others I will say the same I would say to any coworker – thanks for doing a good job.
While I would not have made his point on Memorial Day, where emotions can run kind of high, I thought his point was well made. "Hero" is so overused that it has gone the way of "Patriot"... words that have been driven to the point of meaningless cliche by those who would use it for the purpose of scoring political points or just being patronizing. Like any other profession, there are those who perform their jobs on the continuum starting at "well", continuing to "exceptional", and ending at "heroic." Then there is also the bottom 5% of every high school's graduating (and sometimes non-graduating and felony record) class. Calling the latter heros would be an insult to the true heros.
I agree with him, and I'm not a left-wing liberal in any way...I'm a registered Republican.
First, I never identified with the notion of service to your country as being inherently good or noble...and certainly not "hero" worthy...I always hated that JFK quote "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" – even though I love this country, my first question is about what I do for myself...i think putting your country first on a list is just weird...it seems almost sick in a way.
Also, the reality is that most people who get jobs in the military do it because they can't find another job and they need money...and those who fight in war, are basically just following the orders of their boss at their job...this is also something that I certainly don't identify with as being inherently good in any way...in fact, I think people who are ok with taking orders their whole lives are generally pretty weak, and generally afraid to think for themselves and stand on their own two feet.
People cry for the families who have lost loved ones in war....But the cold reality is that the man of the house put his life in danger voluntarily for his job ...there isn't a draft anymore folks...he put his life in danger, ahead of the interests of his family because in at least a lot of cases he wasn't smart enough or didn't have the balls enough to do something better with his life.
Are there people in the military who are heros?...sure. It takes balls to put your life in danger for a cause you believe in...but how many soldiers actually believe in it? And how many of them are actually taking orders from the bosses because they need the money?....that's not noble – and when you're taking orders to kill people in a cause you don't believe in from a gov't that would rather your first question be what you can do for them, then I would say that it is the opposite of noble...it's cowardly....and people are giving this reporter flack because he doesn't want to auto call everyone in the military "heros"? this is a joke
You really don't know much about the military if you think a majority of them don't care about their mission, or are just doing it for money. Most do believe it, don't assume they do not just because you put yourself first.
Not saying you are wrong to put yourself and family first, just don't project that mentality to others.
+1
A hero is my father who served 23 years in the military and died 30-some years later because of Agent Orange caused multiple myeloma. He never complained about what happened and never spoke badly of his country or the military.