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
Most of our soldiers are not that brave. They are smart enough though. I've often seen them corner terrorists/insurgents into houses and then instead of going in room by room in a fair fight. They just call in an air strike. How is that brave? Brave is going against the powerful US military.
Audie Murphy was a hero!
Audie Murphy was a huge hero, but he wasn't a hero because he put on a uniform. He was a hero because he risked his life to help others. Being a soldier doesn't make you a hero – doing heroic things makes you a hero. I'm a veteran, but I never did a heroic thing while in uniform, therefore I can't be considered a hero.`
Just imagine, there is a war and nobody would go there to fight ... In my eyes a true hero would be somebody who says: "That's not my war, it's not justified – I am not going to fight!"
Mitt Romney championed the Vietnam war and then said he was not going to fight.
What does that make him?
"Just imagine, there is a war and nobody would go there to fight" – yeah, just imagine if your city were under attack and all the military people said -"I don't know anybody there, its not my war" and nobody came to fight for you. What if your family were taken hostage and no one would help.
If nobody would go there, then nobody would attack my city ...
I am a veteran and former member of THE HONOR GUARD, I don't think of passed VETERANS as HEROS either,that term is misused by the DEM. party to discribe their voters. I believe them to my friend and family that are missed.
millions made the same decision(BILL CLINTON),that's the past.
Hayes original statement was right on the nose, and there was nothing wrong with it. It should not have been percieved as insulting. He merely had an intelligent thought that was politely stated and worthy of discussion. Sadly, he weenied out and apologized for something he did not need to apologize for. In my opinion, that apology should be more offensive to our veterans than the original statement. The whole reason that vets defend our country is so we can have the freedom for polite debate and intelligent conversation. Apologizing for a politely stated intellectual question is un-American. In fact, it seems kinda French.
So your definition of a hero is some one that goes to fight so you don't have to? In recent years the word has lost all meaning. When I was growing up no one debated what it took to be a hero and it was a rare thing. Simply showing up didn't make you a hero, it may make you brave but not a hero. Being a hero took an extraordinary act. We're talking running into a burning building with little hope of survival to rescue a child or charging a machine gun nest to save your buddies. Those were heroes. By the time of 911 we were told everyone that died in the two towers were heroes. Apparently now being in the wrong place at the wrong time makes us heroes. Being a hero requires a conscious act. Now calling some one a hero in our self centered society is far more about the person calling some one a hero that the "hero" themselves. We say it to make ourselves feel better. A couple of decades ago I had an argument with a friend over what makes a person an artist. She contended that everyone is an artist. The problem is if everyone is an artist then what do you call "actual" artists? Increasing the scope of a word to include everyone negates the meaning so you are forced to invent new words. It's like calling everyone that does a charity walk an athlete. What about some one that devotes their lives to athletics? By allowing everyone to be called it for the most minor of acts it takes away the accomplishments of the few. Being a hero should require taking an exceptional personal risk to benefit others and not just yourself. A large number of people joining the military do it as a job since they can't find other work. As far as fighting to preserve our freedom that hasn't happened since WW II. Every war since then has been political or financial in nature. Even the latest wars were because a bunch of arab rednecks flew planes into buildings. We might as well have gone to war with Oklahoma because a couple of morons blew up a federal building killing a lot of innocent people. Iraq was a bystander in this so why did we attack them first? They had the misfortune to be sitting on a sea of oil. Going to war when you have a choice makes you brave. Being a hero requires you to do something exceptional. It's not demeaning those that go to war it's giving respect to those that do something above and beyond the call of duty it's not the call of duty itself.
If you said that, a brave man on the other side would kill you and become a hero to his people. Your people would remember you as the coward that wouldn't defend them and allowed them to be subjugated.
It's a fair question that encourages reasonable discussion. You don't have to agree with it, but he didn't do anything wrong.
Keith – well stated.
I'm sick and tired of all this soldier hero worship crap. The soldiers are "protecting our freedom"? Are you telling me that if we weren't in Iraq, we would all be living in gulags without freedom? The US military is not protecting us from an invasion. They are busy following orders and killing whoever the big brother government tells them to kill.
The Department of Defense should be named back to what it was called originall, the Department of War. Or atleast call it the Department of Offense.
"Are you telling me that if we weren't in Iraq, we would all be living in gulags without freedom? The US military is not protecting us from an invasion." – Have we been invaded since we've been in Iraq? It is obviously impossible to prove our presence in Iraq has made us safer. But you also can not prove that the military is "NOT" protecting us from invasion because of Iraq. You can say that the military in general in definitely protecting us from invasion because we know we would be invaded (countries and groups have guaranteed it) if we did not have any military.
I have to agree with Hayes. Calling everyone that wears a uniform a hero devalues the word when it really applies.
Consider what the Medal of Honor would mean if everyone got one just because they served in the military.
I respect those in our armed forces but I wish they did not have to be there.
We need to develop multiple green and renewable energy sources so that we can CUT OUR TIES to these crazy, backwards, and voilent foreign lands.
Any military action should be done in union with other allied forces. And if such an organization doesn't exist, we should create one. Soley because what happened in Iraq should never happen again. We toppled a dictator, and then became responsible for millions of people. We never should have done that without help.
Once we follow these 2 goals:
1. Energy Independence
2. No military action without allies
Our troops will not need to be deployed in the manner they are now. They may be brought home and only sent out for TRUE CONFLICT. At home they will not lose their jobs. We can put them to work rebuilding infrastructure (bridges, roads), put their minds to work on technology and vehicles. The military is a huge untapped resource. They can still train to fight – but they are capable of other things too. That resource should be tapped.
Chris Hayes is correct. There is nothing wrong with what he said or how he said it. The tone was respectful. Just because you wear a military uniform does not make you a hero.
I'm not offended by his remarks. He didn't say that NO military personnel are heroes, just that serving alone doesn't make you a hero. I served for over two decades, deployed to the desert (where I sat in an office), missed countless birthdays and holidays with my children, and I don't feel particularly heroic. I joined for college money, stayed an extra decade and a half for the duty. I feel like I made a sacrifice that few will choose today, or few will choose in a great economy, but is that heroic? I know people who have saved lives – they are heroes.
Reminds me of that Camper Van Beethoven song: "Never run a flag up a pole like 'Mr. red, white, and blue' down the road but I never called myself a hero for killing a known communist." Now can you reflect on this without having a fit?
I agree with him. People join the military for all sorts of reasons. Some want to feel important, some are estranged from family and want a sense of belonging, some are just losers with nowhere else to go, no education, and no way to support themselves. The word "Hero" used to be reserved for just that - true heroes who did something WAY above and beyond normal duties, putting others before themselves. There were relatively few true heroes in our military in the latter part of the twentieth century, but lots of screwed-up losers who had no choice but to follow orders, or get sent to the brig. Pay sucked, empty/false promises of great career options vanished, military families were on WELFARE, for God's sake.
Enlistment numbers fell into the toilet. Standards had to be lowered, because intelligent people stayed the hell away in droves. Enter the "HERO" propaganda by the military. "Join the military and be a HERO!" That's all the word "hero" is, any more. That advertising and propaganda has fed right into the narcissism of teens and young adults, and provides a justification/excuse to allow an entire population to feel better about the colossal waste of human life we expend on war after unnecessary war.
Yeah, call them ALL "heroes" and lead them like stupid, blind sheep to the slaughter. They won't mind the lies, the propaganda, if they can just call themselves HEROES, if they can just look at coffins of their sons, daughters, comrades in arms, and call them HEROES. They're too stupid to stop and THINK. They'll fall for it. Look around you. Read some of the comments here. They all ARE falling for it, still. And so are their families.
Maybe instead of spending all that money on war, they should spend it on education, so we don't have these "losers" anymore that sign up for the military just to have some sort of future ...
The word "hero" is so overused as to become meaningless....
A hero is someone who has done something heroic. I know, duh, right? I agree with waheid that heroism is "(1) action above and beyond the call of duty and (2) action that was done at some risk to the individual." This can be anyone, not just those that serve in the military. But, because those who serve in the military have a higher likelihood of being at personal risk they naturally have a higher likelihood of doing something heroic. Not everyone in the military is a hero, but there are many heroes serving in our military.
I had this guy try to sweet talk me once and he had the nerve to say he was a veteran. I asked him about his military service and he said he served less than a year and was never deployed during the few months he was in, and he still thought he was a veteran??? More like an extended boot camp!!!
People overuse the word 'hero' constantly in this culture. People called Dale Earnhardt a hero when he died – ! I'm sure he was a nice guy and certainly a skilled driver, but he didn't run into a burning building and rescue a kid – he was doing a risky job and his number came up. I have respect for anyone brave enough to go into the military, and I'm not going to be RUDE to anyone unless they're rude to me, but was the guy who mowed down all those civilians in Afghanistan a while back (leading to the flag-burning and other retaliatory events) a 'hero'? He served in the military. (Of course fox news people would say yes, but I'm addressing rational people.) Some people join the military because they like to kill, or because they believe every bit of Us Versus Them propaganda they hear. Not most, but some. I can see why some people would take this broadcaster's statements the wrong way, but...I say cut him a break. Particularly you republicans who seem to have no problem cutting romney a break for his near-constant statements about how 'funny' it is fire people, or how it's okay to strap dogs to the top of a car, or how it's okay to hitch your wagon to someone who STILL, after the long-form birth certificate and 4 years, spews vitriole about the president not being a 'real American.'
Bob said: "Mitt Romney championed the Vietnam war and then said he was not going to fight.
What does that make him?"
A Chicken Hawk Republican. Just like the rest of them.