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 have to admit, i was more offended by his constant use of a run-on sentence to make his point. If you need more than 4 commas to illustrate a point (AND you're supposed to be a "journalist"), then you need a period. Followed by a space. Then a new sentence.
A hero is someone who displays an EXTRAORDINARY example of a positive character trait. In war this may be a soldier risking his/her life to save others. In civilian life it may be the fireman who rescues the child at great personal risk. Or it may be the teacher who refuses a promotion so he can continue as a positive role model in the classroom. Etc.
Heros don't have to be in the military, and not all military people are heros. I think this is what Hayes might have been trying to say. The key is that what a heroic person does must be EXTRAORDINARY. This is NOT to say that soldiers who never do anything truly heroic should be looked down upon. Not being a hero is not something to be ashamed of. Very few people in ANY endeavor ever become heros. That is what gives "hero" meaning and significance.
Sid
Enlisting alone makes you a hero because you don't know where you are going to end up once your enlisted. You are taking a gamble with your life
He's right. There are hundreds of different jobs in the military and most are non-combat. So if someone is a dental hygienist cleaning teeth for the Navy in San Diego, they're a hero?
pathetic. But it's exactly what we've come to expect from MSNBC.
It is bad enough that an elitist like him questioned wether to say her when referring to military men and women, but to say it on Memorial Day was vile.
I dont know if anyone noticed but he made the comment on Sunday and not on Monday!
Signing upn for the military is one of the most selfless acts one can go through with in our country nowadays. Kudos to those that make it home unscathed, but when you sign up, you are possibly signing yourself into imminent danger. It doenst matter if not everyone that signs up sees combat or saves someone. The fact that they could be put into that situation at anytime and that it is completely beyond their control is a pretty brave thing to do to begin with.
well said.
"the military is one of the most selfless acts" really Lee S then why is it all the guys I have known who joined the military did it for salary, tuition, life experience , or bragging rights. Doesn't sound to selfless to me.
Trying to make a living in order to eat and live is a challenge out here in the real world too! Two college degrees with experience and it does not mean anything. I trained my H1-B replacement. My father and grandfather were combat decorated soilders. They fought so H1-B's could take our jobs? Who is the hero?
@kelvin, whether they realized it or not they were putting themselves in harms way. Sometimes the biggest heroes are the ones that dont knwo what they are getting themsleves into. Anyway, the real point the host was trying to make was that the word is being used o promote more war. Thats outrageous. See below reply.
I believe that the host was correct, albeit not politically correct, to question what is a hero. This seems to have been an intellectual discussion about the term hero and the trouble with how it is used to augment the nationalistic notion of people who died for freedom. To me, a hero is someone who acts in the interest of others while jeopardizing their own welfare. One could argue anyone in the military could fit this description. I do agree with the host in that he seems to question the ethics of using "heroes" as an argument to support war. War serves no one, especially not the people doing the fighting. One curious development is the 1000 responses to this request for feedback. The host is being thrown under the bus for an intellectual discussion when that is exactly what he is paid to do. There truly is an intellectual divide in this country. This much ado is a clear indicatoin
People are killed everyday in automobile accidents. All of the world hundreds if not thousand of people are being mangeled, injured, and killed by motorists and their cars. but yet, we have one of the predominate advertisers in the US, the auto manufactuer. We have dozens of magazines glorifying cars and gving them "car of the year" awards while they are mowing down people left and right and a main contributor to the pollution of our planet. Are we advocating all of these horrible things by advertising automibles in an attractive appearance and then lavishing them with rewards? No one is saying the word "hero" in the military is being used to push more war. That is outrageous.
Strangely, I don't see this as an intellectual discussion. I see this as a direct attack upon, and affront to, our nation's military. Apparently so do the vast majority of responders.
As someone who put college on hold, put participation in college athletics on hold such that i could enlist in the us marine corps, subsequently serving in the marine special forces (force reconnaisance), putting my life in constant danger such that idiots like this little punk could sleep at night, i find it absolutely insulting. for the many brave men and women who served in korea, ww1 and 2, vietnam; i find this little punk nerd a nauseating existence of humanity.
that is why i believe they should reinstate the draft. i served in the marine corps, voluntarily, because i saw it as my rite of passage. the age of 18 was not sufficient, for me, to become a man. i had to earn my manhood, and the best way to do so was under fire.
we need the draft back. every male, upon turning the age of 18 should be mandated to serve, at a minimum, 2 years in the armed forces. failure to do so, results in a felony on their record and a minimumum jail sentence (in a maximum security prison) of 3 years. this might rid the country of little cry baby wussies whose version of manhood is how many people you can kill in video games or how much you can lie about yourself on facebook.
I'm glad someone took the overuse of the term 'hero' and brought it to the public's attention. It might get him yelled at, but that's just a knee-jerk reaction that's to be expected when someone doesn't go along with something. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer got beat up at the AIDS walk because he wouldn't wear the ribbon.
It may be a small thing, but it annoys me that whoever wrote this article (I don't see a name at the top of it...) doesn't know the correct meaning of the phrase "begs the question." The correct meaning of the phrase is to prove a proposition by implicitly assuming what you were trying to prove; it's basically a synonym for circular reasoning. The incorrect meaning (and what this writer seems to mean) is that it "raises the following question." It's really sad that supposedly professional writers are so illiterate these days.
You are soooo right ! I'm sick and tired of hearing and seeing this phrase applied incorrectly.
If your so worried, why dont you get your degree and write articles for CNN and lets see how much feedback you would get. (Oh hopefully i didn't use something wrong.)
I'm a veteran. In fact, I'm an OEF/OIF veteran. That technically makes me a war veteran. I am not a hero. Not everyone in the military is a hero. Chris Hayes, you shouldn't have apologized.
Don't be a hero, Forrest. If you get in trouble, just run as fast as you can.
What makes a hero? Sacrifice has a lot to do with it.
Examples:
My son-in-law, a Marine, who deployed to Afghanistan twice, engaged Al Queda operatives in fire fights, sustained repeated concussions from nearby blasts, set out on foot patrol day after day even though his buddies were being "blown up," even though he felt he was "playing Russian Roulette with my legs," His words were prophetic – he continued courageously doing the job he was sent there for, until he was shipped home missing those legs after an encounter with an IED.
My daughter, who at the tender age of 22, lovingly cares for her double amputee hero, and mourns the loss of their young hopes and plans. Yet she stands by him and often comments on how very handsome he is (and he is.)
My late father, who served his country in the Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and CIA covert ops, who risked himself to save and protect others, who cared faithfully for my disabled mother for 20 long years.
These are my personal heroes -
In my book, anyone who has died as a voluntary member of the armed services – and they do volunteer, folks – is a hero for taking on that risk to protect my freedoms. The truth is, some service jobs that people choose to do as their calling are inherently much more risky with very little monetary reward. And that means something. And it should. So, I'm saying "thank you" to all of you out there making those choices.
At the same time, I understand Hayes perspective and think he had 100% right to voice that perspective. It doesn't make him "wrong" that it might not be my perspective or your perspective.
I don't think I would automatically place all members of the military or the fire brigade or law enforcement in the "hero" category. I think Retired Fire Fighter put it very well when he said a "thank you for your service" might be what we really mean in most cases.
He shouldn't have apologized. The most important ideal these men and women fight for is freedom of speech. To back down is more of an insult to their sacrifice.
"Or does it apply to people who put themselves above others?" Obviously it applies not to those who "put themselves above others", but to those who put others above themselves. I think I know what the author meant (put themselves ahead of others in the line of fire, perhaps), but it is just as clumsily worded as Hayes' poorly-stated opinion. I don't really disagree with Hayes', uh, assessment, but he still came off as an, uh, @$$. "Does enlisting alone make you [a hero]?" Yes. And no. If you enlist you are a hero – unless your reason was, or has become, to kick @$$ and take names. If that's the case, you're not a hero but a warmonger with possible anger-management issues, and a violent person seeking an outlet. If you'd have joined regardless of whether or not a conflict was taking place, because you believe in giving of yourself to your community and country, then, yes, you are a hero for just enlisting. Anytime to you put your personal interests second to the greater good, you are a hero. The greater the sacrifice, the greater the hero.