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
I served in the U.S. Army during Desert Storm and I can tell you one thing... "just serving" does not make one a hero. There are a WHOLE lot of "non-heroes" in the military and signing your name on a line and making it through basic doesn't cut the mustard.
Soldiers are not heroes! They are blood thirsty mercenaries looking for an "adventure". That's the only reason why they sign up. They cheer when they kill people. They are murderous maniacs, and soldiering is their outlet!
Waging war against a civilian population is not heroic. For a killer to risk his life to save a fellow killer may be heroic to his band of killers, but it is certainly not heroic in any larger context.
Chris is right for many reasons, as he said to call all soldiers heroes is to justify further war (and that does not benefit our soldiers in any way). Additionally, to make a blanket statement that all are heroes, is to ignore the horrendous actions of many soldiers, raping men and women who serve with them, raping adult and minor civilians of occupied areas, massacring civilians. Some soldiers are heroes, not all; however, this does not reduce our obligation and/or our government's obligation to soldiers. They must receive benefits (safe benefits), they must receive aid in finding jobs, they must receive support in reintegrating into society.
chris hayes is my hero because he pulled a burning gerbil out of my butt (when trying my very first Pennicoli) . He saved me from the embarrassment of the Emergency Room. I am forever grateful.
Hey! Can't you just let the 60s/70s go? They are only relevant when discussing Bill Clinton's military service avoidance, or when discussing the antics of obscure outspoken preachers in Chicago that had passing interactions with our current President. THEN (and only then) do those years become very very important.
We have free speech in this country and anyone can say what and how he or she feels. Chris was simply expressing his interpretation. A hero is defined as "A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life", most of us are not heroes, we may act as heroes, but "risk and sacrifice" is what makes a person a hero.
And don't you think that knowingly going into harms way in the service of your country makes you a hero?
Who else would do such a thing?
I do not think the comment was out of line, but understand why it evoked such a response over Memorial Day weekend. It was simply meant to call into question the age-old government propaganda of calling all of its military personnel "heroes." There are those in the military who do act heroically to save lives and those who commit egregious injustices–like in many other walks of life. I agree with Hayes' initial comments that calling all military personnel 'heroes' denies us the ability to morally question whether a war that the U.S. enters into is just. Patriotism is not accepting the definitions of heroism that our government creates for us, but rather involving ourselves in an active critique of its actions, including war, in order to work toward a better nation.
Helpful hint to rightwing crazies; Whenever your argument contains an absolute word like "ALL", you will quickly paint yourself into a corner of bad logic.
He has nothing to apologize for. He has a right to his opinion, popular or not, and I'm tired of the PC propaganda. If we are to be free, then let's act like it. Simply serving in the military does not make one a saint. There are true heros like Pat Tilman, there are those truly motivated to serve this country, but there are a whole lot of others just there because they have nowhere else to go in the private sector and needed a job. I am tired of the military getting demigod status. I'll gladly fight and die for this country, but not so we can worship at the altar of statists.
eloquently stated
To me, a hero is someone who, with courage, looks beyond himself or herself to serve and inspire others. And only those so inspired or served can really determine who the hero is. Since we citizens are the protected, it is common and respectful to refer collectively to members of the Armed Services as heroes, since we seldom experience their actions directly. So as a group they are collective heroes; as individuals some are not. Some of my heroes served in the military, but that is only because I know them out of the military and their service has inspired me. I also have heroes outside the military who meet the criteria above: certain co-workers, some teachers, people who act when they see an injustice and otherwise demonstrate courage in the face of hardship.
Soldiers are not heroes. They are simply doing the job they signed up for. They signed up to kill people not to unite people. Killers are not heroes.
I'm former military myself, and I do not think that all servicepeople are heroes. A hero is someone who goes above and beyond the call of duty, many times at great personal risk, and not all military personnel fall into that category. Should military personnel be respected and honored for serving? Absolutely. But someone who is in a desk job on a base in a peaceful country is not a hero; he or she is a dedicated worker doing a job like any other. The heroes are the ones who put themselves at risk to save their fellows from a bomb, or sneak behind enemy lines, or deliver supplies to a precarious post, and so on. I certainly wouldn't call myself a hero. I just did my job to the best of my ability.
As someone who has been in the Navy for over 26 years and served two 12 month tours in Afghanistan, I think I'm qualified to address this.
Raising your right hand to volunteer to serve in the armed forces, the police force or the fire department is heroic, because you are potentially putting yourself at risk. However, serving in the armed forces does not necessarily make you a hero. Many people join the military for the college $$$, the skills they want to learn, or whatever personal agenda, but they never stepped into a combat zone, nor do they want to. That is what separates them from the heroes.
In the end, Chris Hayes' analysis wasn't necessarily incorrect, but his wording should have been better given his lack of sacrifice.
We're all qualified to address this, that is the point of being a citizen rather than a passive serf. Military service CAN be a career of heroism, but for most, it is far from it. Dodging bullets may require physical courage, but not moral courage. Moral courage is exceedingly rare, inside the military and out. If there was more moral courage, then the military itself would refuse to fight in wars of choice, and would tell the civilian leadership to think twice. If there was more moral courage in military leadership, then defense contractors wouldn't be robbing this country blind on outrageous corporate welfare programs like the F-35, 767 tankers, V-22, no bid contracts, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
A hero is someone who buts others lives over his own in extremly impossible situations, just becuase you are in the armed servecies, a police officer, fire fighter, or some other rescue personnel does not automatically make you a hero,
it has always been in the past someone who goes above and beyond the call of duty or what is considered the norm in their respective endevors. that is a hero. look at your history.