Download PDF of this full issue: v34n1.pdf (11.3 MB)

My View: On Heroism

By John Zutz

Since the fall of the twin towers on September 11, it seems that some have been a little free in labeling people "hero." Certainly nobody will deny that police and fire personnel who rushed to help survivors — and ultimately gave their lives in the collapse — deserve the title. However, recently it seems the line drawn between heroism and ordinary everyday actions has been moved significantly toward the mundane.

In classical mythology, a hero was a being of great strength and courage celebrated for bold exploits. He was often the offspring of a mortal and a god. Recent tradition holds heroism to be distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility and strength.

It's a shame to dilute those standards by honoring more pedestrian actions with the designation. Certainly to be considered for the honor a person ought to have performed some action above and beyond normal. Medal of Honor recipients qualify, as do most of those awarded Silver and Bronze Stars or their equivalents.

A young girl caught in an ambush, wounded and held as a POW (apparently without firing her weapon) is certainly a victim of circumstance. But with no action on her part other than surviving, she doesn't qualify — though she was awarded a Silver Star.

On their return many of the troops serving in Iraq will be called heroes. Most of them don't qualify, and shouldn't be included in the category, since the guy next to them performed the same actions.

On occasion those of us who served in Vietnam have been addressed as heroes. Most of us don't qualify, either. The fact that we went, served our country, and survived doesn't raise us to the level of exceptional courage, nobility or strength.

Many of those whose names are on the wall were heroes, though not all. As a survivor I politely decline the honor, and call for higher standards.