This week's blog post is taken from the "New York Times: The Opinion Pages" titled "'Hero Worshiped'" written by Chris Suellentrop. It suggests that the word "hero" is overused today, and not everyone deserves the title. Some people believe the firefighters and police officers who responded to the 9/11 attacks were not heroes at all, and that they were just doing their job. Others believe that our service men and women are not all heroes either, and only the soldiers who give their lives to save their comrades are the ones that deserve such praise. What's your opinion on the definition of the word "hero?" Is it really completely subjective, or used too liberally in today's society? Please check out this blog page and respond with your thoughts. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/hero-worship/
-Molly, Bianca, Lisa, Breanne
I want to punch this person in the face. I would like to see this New York Times writer sign up for the military or another similar service job. I agree that not everybody that does this job is "unusually selfless," but guess what? You're writing for a magazine. So before you go and rip on the people who are actually doing our country a service, maybe you should go out and try it. I believe these people deserve to be considered heroes because they have put themselves in the position to be an "unusually selfless person" if the opportunity arose. I bet you anything, the author of this article would never have given a second thought about how he/she would have been running away from the burning trade center towers.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this article at all. You don't have to die to become a hero. Hero is in the eye of the beholder. When you donate clothes to the poor aren't you saving someone from the harsh winter? Donating blood saves lives. Why can't you be declared a hero???
ReplyDeleteWell people that donate blood and serve in the military are fantastic people, but take a closer look at the word "hero". In it true, original meaning, you had to be a demigod in order to be a hero. If anyone today can be a hero, then what even makes it special?
ReplyDeleteThe author isn't ripping on anyone at all, and I think he has a point. If anyone can be a hero then the word loses all meaning. It should be used with a little more reservation.
I tend to agree that 'hero' is an overused title these days. Public service certainly involves a strong sense of duty, but it need not be a 'rite of passage' to hero status. What about the idea that we should all be required to perform a given amount of civic work in return for what our communities already offer us? The beautiful thing is that, as it stands, these people chose these career paths. They volunteered without it being required of them. That alone, however, does not automatically make them heroes.
ReplyDeleteI do not deny them some degree of 'honor' or 'bravery', but when it comes to 'heroes' and 'heroism' in the media, how many of the last several real-life references you heard were actually something extraordinary that doesn't happen every day for a person of that job? These are the actions that deserve special recognition as heroic; to do otherwise dilutes the meaning too much.
Well the point exactly isn't that everyone is a hero. Everyone has the quality to be something more than just an everyday person. Hero is now in other peoples' perspective. We can't all be satified or have the same invision of a hero but we have to look for something higher so that we can one day reach that goal of being successful. Heroes are now more like a common goal. We may not deserve the title but it gives some people a strive to be close to one as possible.
ReplyDeleteI tend to have to agree and say that the author isn't "ripping" anyone. She is just saying that we need to re-define what is heroic.
ReplyDeleteThe portion of the article that interested me was when the author talked about the Marine who gave his life to save the lives of others. She asks the question at the end of the paragraph "how many Americans have heard of Dunham's fatal courage?" With this point, the author solidifies that we overuse the word hero because she gives us an example that she finds truly heroic.
We can't categorize every service person as heroic, just as we can't categorize certain careers, groups, etc as heroic. We can categorize heroes by individual acts.
I have to agree with the author saying that the word hero is used to liberally. I don't believe that a chosen profession makes a person a hero automatically. But I think a hero in those professions can be defined as someone that goes above and beyond what they are required to do in order to cause good. For example, the marine that sacrificed his life to save his fellow soldiers, I believe, was truly heroic because he didn't have to do that, he went above and beyond what he was required to do to cause good. As for the firefighters its more of a gray area because yes they were just doing their jobs but at the same time they went into the buildings even after one collapsed and they continued to try and save lives even when it was realized that the buildings were going to inevitably fall, so I believe that at least some of the emergency personnel during 9/11 were heroes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author about not everyone can be a hero. But I do not agree with her about people who sacrificed their life in the 9/11 to save innocent people. I think because it is not just because of their responsibility but because they put their life at risk to save people. They knew that when they went into the building, it was going to collapse anytime. They were the heroes because at least at this time, they were different than usual. They deserved to be call"Heroes".
ReplyDeleteWhere we draw the line between who is a hero and who is not is very important.It is not wrong to have more than one hero in every situation but when the use of the word becomes more generalized, it tends to be problematic. The question is whether heroism works well when ascribed to the minority or majority of the people.
ReplyDeleteGeneralization tends to occur when it becomes difficult to determine who was more heroic.
I totally do not agree with this artical.Even though they are doing their job, they save lives, their jobs are dangerous. They may lose their lives during saving others. Heroes not only the one can change the world, every can be heroes if they make contributes to the scociety and the world.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say that i'm with most everyone on this blog. It's like a little kid wrote rrit. he expects heroes to be all big and bad ass. it wasn't just their job to save those people during 9/11. they do it because they're all heroes. they are all ordinary people that are trying to make this country a better place whether during a huge disaster or not. even if 9/11 wouldn't have happened, those people are heroes. they are in the streets every day trying to make a difference. it just so happens a huge disaster happened and they were able to make a much larger difference making them that much more of a hero.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author in the sence of him saying the word hero is over used and that some people should not get the title of a hero. At the same time i disagree with the statement he made saying that firefighters from 9/11 should not be viewed as heroes. His reasoning was that a hero gives his life up to save a comrad. I thought firefighters also put their lives on the line to save people, kinda sounds like the same thing to me.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the word hero is over used if it is still held to to the same standards that it was in comic book and heroic movies, etc. However I do feel that anyone doing a good deed, donating blood, fighting in the war, can be considered a hero as well. If this is the case though, then I think the term "hero" should be redefined.
ReplyDeleteIs that saying you are definately not a hero if everything you did are just what you supposed to do. For the ones are doing the job set to whatever sacrifice or donating their lives, they are born to have the title of hero. I really have the same feeling as the classmates posted above, heroes are not easy to become, but guys, remember, the ones who put themselves on those dangerous postion must be the heroes we have respect to.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the word hero is used too much. I feel that if one has the guts to put their life at risk on a daily basis, that is a hero. I know that I am nowhere near brave enough to do such a thing, so they definitely deserve the title of hero.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the word hero is used quite too often in today's society. A hero is not someone who performs a single good deed and is rewarded for it. A true hero is someone who does what is right for the sake of helping others. These acts are done habitually and often times when no one else is around to see them. These separate true heroes from the average good Samaritans
ReplyDeleteI believe that the word hero is used too much in today's society. I see that most of the other people feel the same way, but I think that the term hero can still be used in society. Sure the word is used freely, but there are heroes that deserve recognition. In my opinion I feel that the firefighter's that sacrificed their lives in an effort to save the people in the buildings is very heroic. Not many people would do that and they deserve recognition for their feats.
ReplyDeletei agree with the author to an extent. I agree when they say that heros titles are over used but i dont not agree about when they say that soliders are not heros and are doing their job. Risking your life isn't a common task in a everyday job. So when someone is risking their lifes for another thats a hero.
ReplyDelete