Those two words have been expanded over the past decade or so to the point where they have become virtually meaningless. Who isn’t a “hero” or a “survivor” nowadays?
In reality, a hero is someone who takes great risks to life and limb in order to safe someone else. Period.
Now I tell what a hero not is: A half-literate schlepp who works the day shift emptying bedpans at a nursing home, and the night shift at Walmart to support a retarded kid, is not a hero. She would be a loser. A fireman (or anybody) who goes into a burning building to safe a human or a pet is a hero. You see where I’m going with this?
A heart surgeon who takes the lifes of others into his hands every day, under great pressure and with skills that most of us will never aquire, also is a hero. So is a pilot, because he risks his life and the lifes of others as his normal job duty. He has tremendous responsibilities on his shoulders. Yet, with the exception of the firemen, we never call these people heros. When was the last time you heard someone say, “This heart surgeon is really something. Not many could do what he does. He is a true HERO.” But all the time you hear people say things along those lines about the above cited schlepp. It is insincere. They know they heart surgeon doesn’t need an ego booster, plus they are possibly envious of his success.
Survivor: A survivor is someone who has made it out of a flaming car wreckage alive. Or someone who almost drowned and was brought back to life. In other words, a survivor, in the original sense of the word, is someone who had a close brush with death, but made it out alive.
This is what a survivor is not: Someone who was molested as a child. Incest survivor is a bullshit term. Not that the experience isn’t bad. I’m sure it is. But you were never in danger of actually dying. There are countless examples like that. Nowadays, everyone who has had an unpleasant experience at some point in their lives is a “survivor”, and every everyday workaday loser is a “hero”. ACK!!! I can’t stand it. Everytime I hear it I want to scream my head off. Those terms have had their fifteen minutes, let’s put them back on the shelf and use them only in their original meaning.
Two of my friends are survivors of incest/molestation at a very young age. You have no idea how badly such an experience can screw a kid up. It can lead to psychological problems–including psychological problems that manifest themselves in such wonderful things as suicide attempts and self-destructive behavior. Someone who manages to overcome these things–which were brought on by something entirely on his/her control–and live a somewhat normal life is a survivor; moreso, anyway, than someone who just got lucky.
As far as your examples of a hero go, they’re not blanketedly valid. A firefighter who runs into a building at risk to their own lives to save someone is a hero in that they have performed a heroic act. However, not all firefighters are heroic–a lot of them are just wonderful, brave people performing their job as best they can, and trying to save lives by putting the fire out. Ditto the heart surgeon (except, of course, the heart surgeon has the added motivation of money, which complicates things). Most of the time, he’s just performing his job, which, incidentally, coincides with saving lives. If he works himself well nigh near to the breaking point, though, to save the life of someone who otherwise wouldn’t have a chance, and who he has no real obligation to operate on, then, yeah, he’s a hero. Otherwise, he’s just a good man working his job as best he can.
I’m not going to touch upon your “loser” comment. I don’t want to get nasty (even though it is the Pit).
Is it not the firemans’ job to save a person fron a fire? Is it not the duty of a pilot to have his/her cargo arrive safely?
IMO your not a hero just by doing your job.
An accountant going into a burning building, I would consider a hero. An officier of the law taking a bullet to protect an innocent is not a hero. The officier is doing his/her swore duty, “to protect and serve.” Don’t take the job if you can’t fill the position.
Andros:
The OP called the person working away in example 2 a loser. I already agreed that the hero label is not necessary, but loser? C’mon.
I probably have more chance of being killed in a car accident than a policeman has of being shot on duty. Does that mean when and if it happens, you can say it goes with the territory?
Waverly,
Yes!.. If people would realize that every time they got into a car there’s a possiblity of an accident and dying, the roads would be much safer.
People, people. Especially Angel of the Lord. You have to learn to think outside the box. (I really dislike this expression, but I can’t think of a better one for what’s going on here.)
Something told me that some people would try to turn this into a discussion about one or the other of the examples I gave instead of focusing on how we overuse those words to include just about anything and everything.
Angel sinks her teeth into the incest “survivor” thing. You are not getting my point. That person may have had a horrid experience (as I acknowledged in my original post), BUT WERE THEY ACTUALLY IN IMMINENT DANGER OF LOSING THEIR LIVES? NO. We have begun using the term “survivor” for people who have had any and every bad experience THAT WAS, HOWEVER NOT ABOUT TO LITERALLY KILL THEM. This is more about the misuse of language than it is about tragic social issues.
yep makes an interesting, albeit predictable argument. Why do we tend to say that people who have jobs that require great heroics and/or knowledge are “just doing their jobs”? They would not have chosen those fields if they weren’t willing or able to put up with the stress, would they? Just the fact that they go into these lines of work alone makes them heroic. I could never become a police officer, for instance, because I’m too cowardly. And you couldn’t pay me all the money in the world to take on the responsibilties of a neuro surgeon.
Now, the same people who roll their eyes and say a fireman or a pilot is just “doing his job” will call a lowly everyday worker a hero. Why? Anyone can work at McDonalds. Why do we treat these lower-rung people so condescendingly? Why don’t we say the same thing about them that we say about (IMHO) more legit “heros”: He is just doing his job.
We should say, “my hat is off to this brain surgeon. Look at the stressful job he has, and at the heroic way he supports his family. Everyday he has people’s lives in his hand, and he’s in constant danger of being wiped out financially from some malpractice suit, frivolous or otherwise”. At least that would be somewhat accurate. If we can’t call the neuro surgeon heroic for doing his job and supporting his family, we shouldn’t call anybody heroic for doing so. Certainly don’t say it to the “lowly” crowd. This is merely condescending.
I’m confused. The guy who can afford the education and has the intelligence to become a surgeon, and who then performs that job every day for truckloads of money, is a hero, but the semi-literal person holding down two jobs to support someone else, is not?
What’s the criteria here? Self-sacrifice? Public utility? Bravery? What?
I can see a pretty solid argument that a person who does nothing more than face the known risks of his or her profession is not a hero, because their action (within the context of their profession) is not unexpected or extraordinary. Similarly, I can see a pretty strong argument that a person who makes an extraordinary effort to do good in the world, beyond that which the average person could or would be willing to do, is a hero, because their actions are both unexpected and extraordinary.
Now, as it happens, I think soldiers, firemen, and police officers are heroic, and not just because I have a definite weakness for a man in uniform. But I also think there are quiet acts of heroism performed every day, and they do not become less heroic for being small.
I will agree, however, that the term is over-used. Successfully “surviving” Lasik surgery does not a hero make.
While I don’t agree with the examples he chose, the OP did raise a valid point about the overuse of the word “hero.” If you don’t do something to benefit another, above-and-beyond, at great personal risk, then you’re not a hero.
Scott O’Grady - got shot down and and evaded capture - not heroic. Those who rescued him, however…
The three soldiers in Bosnia (I think) who got lost, got captured, then were released to Jesse Jackson - not heroes, medals notwithstanding.
People doing their jobs - not heroes. People doing their jobs in extraordinary circumstances to the benefit of others - very likely heroes.
I saw an article in a women’s magazine “My Mom is My Hero” - sorry, but it was sappy, sentimental tripe. Mom was a good woman, but not a hero by any stretch.
How sad we should have spoiled a perfectly good word.
Survive: To carry on despite hardship or trauma; perseve. (Dictionary.com)
Survive: to continue to function or prosper despite: WITHSTAND (Merriam-Webster Online)
Hero: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. (Dictionary.com, emphasis added)
Hero: A man admired for his achievements and noble qualities. (Merriam-Webster Online)
Personally, I consider it a misuse of language to insist on your own definitions of terms, instead of the widely used and perfectly acceptable definitions employed by others.
I don’t give out my e-mail any more on forums because I have had some really bad b/s happen to me by doing this. One time some sicko tracked down my personal stats through my e-mail address. As I have indicated in another topic, I’ve had my share of nut cases that I met on the internet, and I could kick myself to this day for ever exchanging personal info with them.
If you want to say something re my controversial view, you can say it here. This is why I posted it in the pit, because I knew it would piss some people off, and I like as free an exchange as possible. Whatever is on your mind, I encourage you to say it here. I am really not interested in getting any private messaging/back channeling going. I like to keep things out in the open. Speak your mind; I won’t take it the wrong way.
waverly, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that she’s a loser . . . just beating into the ground the point that she’s not a hero.
Suspenderxxxxvzqxzdsxxx:
Well, shit. If you’d simply focussed on the issues of overuse or misuse of words, people wouldn’t be jumping your shit. What, you think we should give you a pass on being a dick simply because you have a point or two? Nope, it don’t work that way, Sparky.
As to your bullshit incest argument, try reading the definitions Jodi posted, than pull your head out of your ass, hmm?
Suspenderzzz: the question was rhetorical but since you answered anyway, had you enabled email from this board and one of the posters harassed you the harasser would be banned. Depending on the ISP, the staff may even contact the harasser’s ISP.
And no offense intended, compared to some of the other troublemakers we’ve had you’re not bad at all.