Oh come on. Did Otto say that Thomas was a jerk whose death is no loss, or something simular? No. He was questioning the public’s reaction to a death of a football player. NOT about the man who died. What exactly is “sick” about his posts? A lot of us out there will continue to question the extreme reaction some people have to the deaths of celebrities. It doesn’t make us “sad” or “sick” to do so.
You feel strong heartfelt feelings about a man you actually met, Marvin, so your feelings run deeper than the rest of us.
Yes, his death is sad. Tragic, even, to those who knew him, as is the death of any strong young person due to accident or other calamity. It is the nature of society to mourn collectively much more loudly and fervently when the deceased is someone who walked in the spotlight, and this will be no exception.
I think that people, especially “sports people” (players, coaches, journalists, fans), tend to view any player who is very good at their particular skill as a Hero. While others might consider this a reduction of the term itself, I can think of certain figures in sports that I certainly admired and for whom I cheered loudly when they performed well, propelling “my” team to victory. Granted, I am more a baseball guy, but I know that if I were a huge football fan, especially in KC, I would definitely have memories of Mr. Thomas as a hero. A hero, at times, for what he did on the field. That he was good-natured and charitable doesn’t particularly impress me; I believe that pro athletes have all the reason in the world to be these things. But, as anyone who chooses to live their life in the public eye, he will be remembered, for the most part, for one thing. Playing damned good football. And when he was playing football, he was, to those who cared, a Hero.
OK ReservoirDog, you make a good point. So you are saying that in “sports speak” (did I just make up a new term?) “Hero” means “Damned Good Ball Player”. Am I getting that right? OK, then for the Sports People out there, the definition is accurate. But you can’t fault the rest of us for not seeing where the word “hero” comes into it. To me, hero means being brave and risking your neck to do something important. It means risking your own safety to help someone in need. So from all I’ve heard, Thomas was this wonderful, much-loved, great guy, but only a “hero” in the Sports Person context. It’s a quibbling over terms, nothing more. He sounds like he will be much missed.
And yeah, you are right. We usually make a bigger deal over the unexpected death of a young, vital person. I’ll admit, I was rather shocked and saddened when I first heard of his accident. Just because he seemed so young, and dammit, it’s sad.
But you know, as a California transplant living in the Midwest, I have to say - the sports obsession out here is over the top. In life, in death, the people out here put these sports figures on too much of a pedestal. Too much focus on sports, sports comes before “real” news issues, Sports is God. At least to my perspective. And I see this current reaction to a sports figure’s death as just an extention of that.
I totally understand why people who don’t care about sports would find this entire thing ridiculous. Granted, in the grand scheme of things, the fact that this man is on the list of the “Top Ten Guys Who Shoved Other Guys Out Of The Way So That They Could Knock Over These Other Guys With The Ball” is not really a big deal.
But every once in a while, if you are a fan, certain players can bring such a feeling of elation to you, an average schmuck, that you are willing to elevate them in your mind to a higher status of person. Perhaps the sadness that some fans will feel, is in the knowing that Mr. Thomas will no longer be able to bring them any more such moments, and not because he had a full career and has decided to retire, but because he didn’t drive well in bad weather.
Having said all of these things, I sincerely hope we’re not deluged with stories about this for the next week and a half. There’s only so much of this crap you can take.
More or less I’ll sum it up in another way for you all. He is one of the rare sports people who ALWAYS was doing the right, good, just, and noble thing. Not taking cheap shots, not drugs, not embezzling, not caught buying clothes at discount (ala Warrick). He also never let his fame eat him up, or make him a superegomaniac.
Yet he wasnt all over the news like Rae Carruth or Ray lewis, because what he did was GOOD AND RIGHT. So in his death he is finally given proper address and respect, that he should have had in life. Blame that on the media and its dwelling on the morguish news of the day.
Yet Derrick Thomas was human, treated everyone else like one, and died a mortal death. He wasnt too good for anyone off the field, but better than almost anyone on it. He played football for sport not for the great wealth that could have been (shown in his loyalty to a team for many years that was strapped for $ and was trying to add talent always) then what money he did get he used not only on himself but his community and its youth.
In this world of Daryl Strawberrys, Peter Warricks, Rae Carruths, and OJ’s, is the Hero the man who actually lived a normal life, gave back to his community, worked for the betterment of all, and died in the most un-fitting way?
you tell me?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
We are quibbling over a term - a word. I say Thomas sounds like a wonderful, generous, nice guy. You want to tack the word “hero” onto that long list of nice things I have used to describe this man. Whatever.
Thomas did what my dad did, in a way. He lived a “normal” life. My dad was not called a “hero” by anyone when he died. He just did what people are supposed to do. In other words, NOT be a jerk. I think it’s great that Thomas was able to resist the temptations put before him when he became famous, but you know what? I expect everyone who becomes famous to not be an asshole. Not being an asshole does not make one a “hero”. (But I’m not sure that’s what you meant…please correct me if I misinterpreted.)
I know, I know - Thomas was a great guy. As was my dad. I don’t call my dad a hero, and I don’t call Thomas a hero (except in “sports speak”.) My dad was a great guy, as was Thomas. What’s so wrong with just being that?
(Bolding mine.) So, the way I see it, definition #2 is really referring more to brave people risking themselves. “Nobility of purpose” I suppose should apply to a philanthropic person, but in the whole, it sounds like risk and bravery are the emphasis in this definition.
Conceded - Thomas fits definition #3 of “hero” - (i.e. “sports speak” for “hero” translates to “Damned Fine Ball Player”) - and he was that.
The problem with language is that, eventually, when the stupid misuse of a word becomes commonplace, it becomes standard and winds up in the dictionary. The same thing happened with the word martyr.
I think you just identified that definitions are part of the problem, Yosemitebabe. This is strictly my opinion, but heroism isn’t limited to risk or dramatics. Hard work, decency, adhering to standards can all be heroic.
Not to be contrarian, and I share your reservations about fame not equaling heroism. Some of the shock and grieving is doubtless based on his fame, but perhaps some of the heroism attributed to his life is due to the “extra” he gave. F’rexample, John Rocker, Dennis Rodman, etc. would be accorded tribute to their fame, but I doubt many would call them heroes.
I am also very sad to hear of Derrick’s sudden and unexpected death.
I don’t personally know him, but I have heard kind remarks about him from my daughter. She works for TWA at KC and became acquainted with him. He always gave her a big smile upon seeing her and greeted her with, “There’s my buddy!”.
She’s going to miss seeing his smiling face. In my book, he really was a nice guy.
You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-
Actually, we’d be typing in an ancient Proto-Indo-European dialect, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Practically anyone would be able to read and comprehend a document from any time period since the dawn of mankind. One could travel to virtually any region of the world and speak the native dialect. There really isn’t anything “better” about the English we speak now in relation to the ancient Germanic it was formed from over the years. Man’s fickle ignorance has complicated spoken and written word and left us with thousands of languages the common man can’t understand.
Really? Well, I would hate to think of someone from the 1700’s trying to figure out what the words BYTE, SILICONE, GRIDIRON, JOYSTICK, HEADPHONES, CAMERA and other words which weren’t around then mean.
The next time you’re having a party, announce how it will be a “GAY AFFAIR.”
Words change their meaning. It’s a fact of any civilization. It doesn’t have to be ignorance, it’s just if the shoe fits, people will oft times wear it.
Don’t blame the “common man” for changing the meaning of words if you’re not adept at picking up a dictionary orr can follow a basic conversation with someone.
I knew before the accident that speeding on an icy road without a seat belt is a stupid thing to do. No hindsight involved.
All I’m saying is that we are WAY too free with words like “hero.” It would be nice, when a person is genuinely a hero, that it mean something for that person to be so called.
[QUOTE]
BYTE, SILICONE … JOYSTICK, HEADPHONES, CAMERA
[QUOTE]
(gridiron, incidentally, has been around since the 14th Century) are examples of new words.
What Otto and the others are objecting to is the inappropriate and lax use of an existing word. If people persist in saying
[ul][li]“hero” when they mean “nice guy”;[/li][li]“tragic” when they mean “sad”;[/li][li]“martyr” when they mean “victim”;[/li][li]“icon” when they mean “celebrity”[/ul][/li]
and a whole host of other examples, then the first-listed word in each of these pairs will eventually lose its meaning. It will no longer be possible to distinguish between what is good or kind or noble or well-meaning (or, indeed, philanthropic, which seems to be the word that people are looking for) and what is truly heroic. The English language will then have lost a useful word and our ability to discriminate between the heroic and the merely good will be diminished.
I am not saying that all language change is bad, only that kind of change which leads to perfectly good words losing their meaning through misuse. Consider, for example, how often “enormity” is used when “great size” is meant. The former will eventually assume the meaning of the latter and we will need to find another substitute for “enormity”. This has already happened with “method” and “methodology”.
I’m not happy over Derrick Thomas’ death, but to join in the debate about words, here’s a question (after a long set-up):
Given that he was driving 70mph and weaving in and out of lanes during icy/blizzard conditions, do you think the family of the passenger who died immediately in the accident would call him a hero?
We are speaking in a modern Proto-Indo-European dialect, not an ancient one.
Well, we’d only have to worry about that if someone from the 1700’s had a time machine.
But, my point was that if people didn’t misuse words, the meanings would never change. Gay would always mean “happy”. That’s not to say the language would not evolve or change and get new words. (i.e., homosexual, homoaffectionate.) In a way, your scenario proves my point.
I probably have more dictionaries in my house I use than the average man has past copies of TV Guide and I can hold a conversation with someone with no problems at all. I just don’t think Derrick Thomas was a hero in the true, initial sense of the word.
Just remember that slandering a good man doesnt earn any of you points, anywhere. What goes around comes around. You are all attempting to sully the face of a man who others admittedly loved and cared for even as a public figure. Who are you as an individual to tell the majority of the populous that they are in fact wrong on how THEY FEEL. No one. You are no one, remember that when you try to trash SOMEONE, out of petty jealous and ignorance.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
Let’s not. Let’s try to learn the correct meaning and stick with that. If we do that with every word, before too long we will be able to express ourselves in a much more meaningful and precise way, rather than groping around in our atrophied little vocabularies to come up with hyperbole like “hero” when all we mean is “decent chap”.
The description you offer is of a kind, generous, humane and philanthropic man. Why do you have a problem with that description of him? It’s not like it’s a bad one.