For GDR

[Kip Powick]

GREG

We seem to apply the word hero to someone who happens to be a good hockey player or rock star

I agree with you, for the most part, Greg and there are times where we, (Canadians) use the word "hero" in the wrong context, but do so to placate others. The most recent example that comes to mind was the death of our servicemen by US friendly fire. The deceased came home as "heros" ...but were they....or were they merely victims of a very unfortunate accident ?

By your, and many others definition, they were not heros, as they did not do anything heroic...just accident victims.

Sometimes I think we blur the lines for the sake of others and in this case, perhaps blurrying the line is justified. Perhaps we should use "champion" more often

Have a nice weekend

[Guest rattler]

Seems that there is support for Mitch's use of the term "hero"

Hero

A hero is defined by Websters dictionary as a “courageous, valorous

man.” There are many people in history that society deems or defines as

“heroes”. An example of a hero from our past is Martin Luther King Jr.. He

went against all odds in his fight for freedom. There are fictional heroes that

can be considered heroes as well. Superman and his antics in saving the

planet are in many ways considered heroism. Many sports stars and actors

are considered by many as heroic figures. Mario Lemiux won his battle with

Hotchkins Disease, a form of cancer, to win a completely different battle, the

Stanley Cup. A hero is a person or character that defies all odds in order to

achieve both the respect and idolization of his fellow human beings.

“Among other characters, a literary hero is a character who lives or struggles

to live by a certain code which he sets for himself or which society or

environment has established for him.”

[GDR]

Hi all

I would agree that Martin Luther King is a hero. He risked his life and actually did lose it serving a noble cause. I wouldn't agree for example that Bobby Orr, (the best hockey player who ever lived), is a hero --- he was just an incredibly talented hockey player. I don't think that because one gifted with a talent in any particular area means that they are courageous or valourous.

As far as those that lost their lives in Afghanistan are concerned, I'd say that they put their lives on the line just by being there. That takes a certain amount of courage and valour.

I think that champion would be a good term to use in lieu of hero in many cases.

At any rate I don't have much time to engage in clever repartee as I'm too busy digging out the drive way so that I can get over to the golf course.

Greg

[sjsa]

I agree, one definition I found was that a hero is someone who "intentionally puts themselves in harms way as a means of service to another".

By that definition the office workers on 9/11 were not hereos, but victims. The Firemen and Police Officers who died that day were heros. That does not take away the loss of the victims but seems a better definition.

Likewise, a pilot who, for whatever reason, runs out of gas and lands in the Azores or Gimli is not a hero as the are saving their own bacon as well as those on board, but perhaps gifted glider pilots who did a great job in that phase of the flight. Similar to a gifted hockey player.

Now a fighter pilot in the battle of Britain, or lets say Malta, who goes up against terrible odds in defence of the people, with only some chance of survival, is a hero.

[BoomerPete]

I don't mean to pick on you but this is one of my pet peeves. What is that Gene Krupa did that was heroic that makes him a hero?

We seem to apply the word hero to someone who happens to be a good hockey player or rock star. The fact that someone is talented in any given field tells us nothing about their courage.

Hi Greg ...

It may be your pet peeve, but your criticism of Mitch's use of the word hero isn't fair. According to my dictionary at least, the word hero is used to describe both one noted for feats of courage and also a person noted for special achievement in a particular field. I don't know if Gene Krupa meets the first definition (maybe he does?), but he certainly meets the second. Perhaps that usage isn't to your liking, but it is an accepted usage so it's hardly fair to give someone a hard time for using it.

I would agree with you though that there has been a lot of politically correct corruption of the word in the last few years such that a person whose sole distinction lies in the circumstances they are/were involved in becomes a "hero", regardless of their actions or accomplishments.

Cheers,

Pete

Hero

n. pl. he·roes

1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.

2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.

3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.

4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.

5. Chiefly New York City. See submarine. See Regional Note at submarine.

[GDR]

You know this is the second time this has happened to me on this forum recently. I just get a good rant going about a word and somebody has to get the dictionary out and spoil the whole thing.

I wonder if that alternative definition has always been there or if that usage has just sorta crept in over time. I liked sjsa's definition as it fit what I believed to be true about the word.

Frankly I do feel that it's a real shame that the secondary definition exists however, by that definition Gene Krupa is a hero.

It still seems to me that you should have to do something heroic to be considered a hero.

Bad day you don't learn somethin' I guess.

Greg