Recently I’ve heard those that dies in the 9/11 attacks refered to as heros, but is every victim a hero? Sure the first responders are, as is anyone who tried to help get other people out of the builiding, but what about people who were killed instantly when the plane hit? Or airline passengers that remained in their seats? Or people that fell/jumped to their deaths? Are they “heros”? I can see how they can be considered martyrs, but heros? What makes a hero?
A hero is someone who saves an innocent while risking their own life, but doesn’t do that kind of thing for a living. A firefighter who goes in to a burning building to rescue a child is a good person, but hardly a hero - the training and equipment and getting paid to do it all cancel out “hero” in my book. I respect them, but a random passer-by that risks their life to save someone (and doesn’t do it in a way that causes someone to have to rescue them), and then dismisses the media attention is more heroic in my eyes.
I could probably come up with a hundred different situations that would demonstrate it, but I’m not sure I can explain it.
A hero overcomes their fears, thus cannot be fearless.
A hero helps someone, they don’t try and fail.
A hero can die in the attempt, but doesn’t risk anyone’s life doing so.
Or something like that.
I’m not trying to dis first-responders or anything - I couldn’t do what they do. But if we include the firefighters in the hero column for their actions on 9/11, we should include all firefighters who do their job. Dying in a culturally significant event doesn’t make one more a hero than dying in a small town house fire.
No capes!
A Hero does the right thing when nobody would blame him for doing the safe or easy thing.
I haven’t been watching the anniversary coverage of 9/11, so maybe they’ve changed the tenor lately, but usually I hear the fire and rescue workers at the WTC being called heroes, and the passengers who overpowered the hijackers on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania being called heroes. Although I’m pretty particular about who gets label as a hero these days, I don’t object to any of those people being called heroes. One could argue that the passengers who fought the hijackers were acting out of self-preservation, and not selflessness, but that’s not a hair I’d care to split. They sacrificied their lives to prevent the hijackers from killing a much larger number of people. Close enough in my book.
In general, I define heroes to be people who put their lives or well-being at risk to help someone else. I very much disagree with Bobtheoptimist in excluding firemen and similar professionals from being heroes. The training doesn’t make their willingness to risk their lives for others any less heroic. If anything, it makes it more heroic, because it’s a daily choice for them, not an accident of circumstances or an impulsive action.
I do consider Firemen Heroes, so I disagree with Bobotheoptimist. The members of the NYPD & FDNY that charged into the Towers are heroes. Those that did not make it out and those that did. The Office manager that did not get out in time but made sure everyone was out and helped others get out is a hero.
The people that rushed the cockpit on flight 93 were heroes.
Rudy Giuliani and his key staff that rush down to the site to facilitate the rescue work and reassure the nation in our time of crisis when the powers that be in DC where absent, were heroes.
The victims that died in the initial crashes were victims and not heroes.
Jim {All above is of course just my opinion}
I don’t see why doing it for a living should disqualify one from being a hero. The firefighter’s training & equipment & pay don’t balance out the fact that he or she is significantly increasing his/her odds of dying a painful or violent death, and usually at a rate of pay less than than that given a person doing an office job.
I define a hero as a person who, by either personal sacrifice or at significant personal risk, works to better the lives of others even when simple self-interest argues otherwise. And this specifically disqualifies sports stars, rappers, and other soi-disant “heroes.”
Hey! I got to use “soi-disant” in a sentence today! Twice!
Does that mean I’m dying?
Well, if you view them as heroes, then it doesn’t disqualify them.
But if the WTC firefighters are heroes, aren’t all firefighters around the world heroes? What about paramedics? Soldiers? Police?
All jobs that I couldn’t do and I respect the hell out of those that I know, I just feel “hero” is a term better reserved for a very few exceptional people - but only if they wear capes!
Maybe I just made up a definition that doesn’t reflect Webster…
The people on flight 93 who caused it to crash into an empty field rather than into a building - they’re heroes to me. They risked and lost their lives to save people they’d never know (and since they did give their lives, I can and will continue to believe that was why they did it, not just out of self interest).
I can contradict myself at a moments notice, too. But I recognize that and wouldn’t take this anywhere near GQ, and would expect to be trashed in GD as well.
“Hero . . . s, deep in our hearts we all are heros, only but for the chance, and spirit will we ever really know”
A quote from the lyrics of a song from Teen III, which pops spontaneously into my head whenever I hear a question like the thread title. Once upon a time, I was a member of the chorus in the musical Teen III.
Having said that, it does sound kind of bland and platitude-y, and arguably takes away from the true heros if we make too many people heros.
But I have no problem with labeling all firefighters heros, whether they die in the line of duty or not.
I do think that just dying doesn’t make one a hero. And sometimes people blur the line between hero and martyr more than they should–there’s a fine line between courage in the face of danger and fooolhardyness or unneccessary risk.
I don’t think there is a hair to split. They were dead either way. They knew what had happened to the other three planes, so cooperating would not have saved them. What makes them heroes, to me, is that they died knowing that they’d prevented the plane from reaching its target. They would have died anyway, but they chose the terms. An extra half hour alive wouldn’t have been any comfort if it ended with them saying, “There’s the White House…We should have done something.”
All of them? No, because not all of them have been tested; not all have been forced to put up or shut up. I’m sure there are some firefighters who blanch when put to the question, though the training & selection processes hopefully broom many of those out.
Actually I do think very many firemen prove themselves to be heroes in doing their daily job. Firefighting is a very tough and dangerous job that results in lives saved. Every time a fireman puts himself at higher risk and saves a life, I would elevate that fireman to the status of hero. Police do not have as many opportunities to be heroic in this way, but many police officers have proven their heroism and on that day hundreds of the NYPD earned that status of hero in my mind.
A soldier has many ways to be a hero and I use the same criteria. I already mentioned and praised the people on Flight 93 but keep in mind, they did not actually put themselves at greater risk. They knew they were dead if they did not do something. They decided among them that someone had to stop the jet and they were the only ones that could. This is another form of heroism. A very great form.
Jim
The only risk they took was that their plan might fail, and the plane would hit its target anyway. They were not dead if they did not do something; they were dead, period. They were not trying to retake the cockpit; they were trying to foil the hijackers’ purpose. Where heroism comes into it is their knowledge that it wasn’t just about them. The plane was supposed to take out people on the ground, and a building, and they stopped that from happening. There was no chance of saving themselves, but they chose not to think only of themselves.
Interesting.
Moved from IMHO to GD.
I like that definition.
You don’t have to be risking your life. My father’s life didn’t suddenly become “at risk” when he decided that he wasn’t going to let death threats change the way he lived; the threats had already been issued. Going on with life as usual was his way of giving ETA the finger. They could kill him, but they couldn’t beat him. Once, one of his brothers (who at the time wasn’t conscious of his own inclusion in The List) was berating him for this and shut up when Dad told him “I can’t get escorts for the whole family. And if I get an escort, I’m putting his life at risk.”
In Australia, if you are trapped in a mine for a while ,you will be considered a hero.
Links
This sounds interesting, Nava; can we get the whole story? Or at least the skinny on ETA?
Please expand on this, is the ETA associated with the Basque separatist movement?
Rilchiam: Yes, you said what I meant to say but much better than I could, thank you.
Jim
Judging by your own list, I’d think professionals like fire and rescue personnel are much more likely to fulfill your second and third criteria than random untrained passerby would be.
To amplify what you’re saying…I agree their choice was significant.
How many of us would do almost anything for an extra half hour? How many of us have said, or felt, we’d move heaven and earth for an extra few moments here with those we love? How much money and effort is expended annually on extending lifespans just a wee bit longer?
Every moment is precious to us. To yield it up, even to risk it, on behalf of others, is more than many of us could do.
Sailboat