Hero Means Less and Less
In 2008,in his special It's Bad For Ya, George Carlin said this about Lance Armstrong (who would admit to doping in 2012):
"I'd like to begin by saying f*** Lance Armstrong. F*** him and his balls and his bicycles and his steroids and his yellow shirts and the dumb, empty expression on his face. I'm tired of that asshole."
He then goes on to make a profound statement in these his opening minutes of his routine: "I'm tired of being told who to admire in this country. Aren't you sick of being told who your heroes ought to be? You know? Being told who you ought to be looking up to? I'll choose my own heroes, thank you very much."
Carlin, the Great Outsider, is one of those people who I have found to challenge my thinking over and over again while making me laugh (sometimes uncomfortably). I wouldn't go so far to call him a hero of mine (though he kind of is), but I have found that his point is well taken and a hard one to consider.
That's because from a young age, we are taught who our heroes are supposed to be. Religion lifts up particular characters and calls them heroes.
Public schools lift up American founders, select explorers, and some civil rights advocates. But as much as some of them should be admired, we have to be careful calling people heroes.
This has to do with the fact that not everything a real-life "hero" does is heroic. Automatically calling a firefighter or police or military person a hero seems, at least to me, to be a mistake. There are heroic members of all of those groups, but just being in the group doesn't automatically make you a hero. They can be characterized as brave, courageous, even selfless, but heroic?
Hero was a term that was reserved for persons who accomplished amazing feats. But the term was also used in the context of that feat. The "heroic" actions of this or that person. Or the person was the "hero" of that event. But to keep them as a hero perpetually? Not healthy for either the person being hailed a hero or those who view them as a hero.
Now I have my own heroes, but I don't venerate their entire lives. And, I have found, most of the heroes I held on to as a child weren't real people to begin with. Superman, Captain America and so forth. Even they had their dark sides. As do many of the heroes of the Bible. So for us to call people heroes is fast becoming a trend that doesn't do the word justice, nor does it elevate the particular activity of the individual.
In a world that is guilty of wanting hyper-equality and hyper-elevation of goals (graduating from Kindergarten? Come on.), the term hero loses its rarity. And when we start calling people hero, when we find out they are not, the term loses its power and majesty.
Lance Armstrong, for example, was a hero for many. Until he wasn't. And then, in retrospect, he could no longer be viewed as a hero.
I suppose we need to be careful with our terminology.
"I'd like to begin by saying f*** Lance Armstrong. F*** him and his balls and his bicycles and his steroids and his yellow shirts and the dumb, empty expression on his face. I'm tired of that asshole."
He then goes on to make a profound statement in these his opening minutes of his routine: "I'm tired of being told who to admire in this country. Aren't you sick of being told who your heroes ought to be? You know? Being told who you ought to be looking up to? I'll choose my own heroes, thank you very much."
Carlin, the Great Outsider, is one of those people who I have found to challenge my thinking over and over again while making me laugh (sometimes uncomfortably). I wouldn't go so far to call him a hero of mine (though he kind of is), but I have found that his point is well taken and a hard one to consider.
That's because from a young age, we are taught who our heroes are supposed to be. Religion lifts up particular characters and calls them heroes.
Public schools lift up American founders, select explorers, and some civil rights advocates. But as much as some of them should be admired, we have to be careful calling people heroes.
This has to do with the fact that not everything a real-life "hero" does is heroic. Automatically calling a firefighter or police or military person a hero seems, at least to me, to be a mistake. There are heroic members of all of those groups, but just being in the group doesn't automatically make you a hero. They can be characterized as brave, courageous, even selfless, but heroic?
Hero was a term that was reserved for persons who accomplished amazing feats. But the term was also used in the context of that feat. The "heroic" actions of this or that person. Or the person was the "hero" of that event. But to keep them as a hero perpetually? Not healthy for either the person being hailed a hero or those who view them as a hero.
Now I have my own heroes, but I don't venerate their entire lives. And, I have found, most of the heroes I held on to as a child weren't real people to begin with. Superman, Captain America and so forth. Even they had their dark sides. As do many of the heroes of the Bible. So for us to call people heroes is fast becoming a trend that doesn't do the word justice, nor does it elevate the particular activity of the individual.
In a world that is guilty of wanting hyper-equality and hyper-elevation of goals (graduating from Kindergarten? Come on.), the term hero loses its rarity. And when we start calling people hero, when we find out they are not, the term loses its power and majesty.
Lance Armstrong, for example, was a hero for many. Until he wasn't. And then, in retrospect, he could no longer be viewed as a hero.
I suppose we need to be careful with our terminology.
Comments
Post a Comment