Modern Heroes

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:06 pm

Just occurred to me that we've spent a lot of time on villains but little on heroes. That got me wondering who the the really big modern heroes are. Mandela immediately occurs as one for greatness of soul and the way he has brought South Africa out of apartheid more peacefully than many of us believed possible.

Another, I suggest, is Gorbachev. The potential for mayhem when the Soviet Union was beginning to crumble was enormous. The temptation to use the Red Army would have surely been too much for many leaders. As it is, there's been remarkably little trouble. And it seems to me that Gorbachev acted in the best interests of the whole world.

Any others people would add? Or perhaps you disagree with my suggestions?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:44 am

Ronald Reagan. No complicated, in depth reasons. I just like the guy.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:37 pm

AUGH!!!!!!

:wah:

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:35 am

Hereward, I think. A man of brain and brawn combined. I model myself on him to a large extent.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:35 am

spot: That's an interesting definition of "modern". Strange you say you identify with him. Somehow I've always seen you as living in a yurt in a field somewhere near GCHQ, wearing an Uncle Bulgaria hat and powering an impressive array of computers and satellites with a bicycle and two cows. That's not bad as a modern Hereward, if a little too far west.

I was thinking of adding McGuinness and Adams. They are definitely heroes of mine, but I'm not sure if they are global enough in scale. There is also a trend towards heroes = peacemakers and I think "hero" is a word with wider application, though I draw the line at sports stars and celebrities.

And after Monty Python, anytime I hear the word "peacemaker", there's always a hint of dairy product involved.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:46 am

The two of them qualify, though we've not constructed a definition of hero yet.

Baron Trimble, David Trimble as was, might stand alongside them in terms of bravery. The heroic part seems to me to include the ability to change along with whatever dire situation calls for heroism. Dragging an unwilling party kicking and screaming toward the light in a country where your own side's illegal paramilitaries are as likely to kill you as anyone else's, that's heroic.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:12 am

Yes, Trimble I suppose. I don't know why he seems less heroic. Possibly because he worked within the Establishment, whereas McGuinness and Adams (and Mandela come to that) have the glamour of the outlaw. Trimble would be more a Gorbachev-style hero.

Possible working definition: A hero is someone who changes the world for the better, or stops it changing for the worse, in a way that involves a high degree of personal risk necessarily taken to achieve the result, and that result must echo round the world.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:23 am

I'm not sure he needs to succeed in order to qualify.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:09 am

:wah:

Nor am I. My main reason for putting it in is to try and cut down the shortlist, if you see what I mean.

There's also the case that failure in a great cause might qualify you as a great human being, but not as a hero. Eg:

Achilles was a hero, and a deeply unpleasant person. Hector was a great human being, but not a hero...?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:33 am

Clodhopper;1319339 wrote:

I was thinking of adding McGuinness and Adams. They are definitely heroes of mine, but I'm not sure if they are global enough in scale.

.

Can we really include those two without any mention of Mo Mowlem., who I think stands head and shoulders above most politicians of those circumstances and of that era

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:16 am

Can we really include those two without any mention of Mo Mowlem., who I think stands head and shoulders above most politicians of those circumstances and of that era

Hmmm. What did she do that was so heroic? Fantastic woman, undeniably a great facilitator, but is that enough to qualify her as a hero? Was she taking anything like the personal risk Adams and McGuinness were?

It would be easy to say that anyone involved in the Peace Process was a hero. We'd all sort of agree, but it's a very loose use of the word "hero". I'd be more inclined to say that a very large number of people displayed a great many of the better human qualites and this is admirable and praiseworthy. In contrast, the Priest who stepped out into the bullets on Bloody Sunday risked his life in a great cause (the saving of human life) and IS a hero. Even though he didn't save the life. Which rather shoots down an earlier part of my definition.:wah:

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:50 am

Without her facilitating an IRA ceasefire and banging both sides' heads together to get the Good Friday Peace Agreement signed, we may not have seen Mcguiness and Adams in the same light. She singlehandedly controlled what both sides did at that time and is responsible, more than anybody, for getting the two sides together. She even visited prisoners in the Maze to get them to sign up the process.

She cannot be left out of any high regard we feel for McGuiness and Adams in their contribution. Every bit as important IMO

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:41 am

I like and admire Mo Mowlem. By all accounts she's every bit as genuine as she appears on the box. And I completely agree that she deserves much credit for the successful outcome (touch wood) of the Peace Process.

I think the difference I'm getting at might best be illustrated by saying that if Mo was removed from the picture the Peace Process might have succeeded. But without Adams and McGuinness there would have been no Peace Process.

Perhaps we need to split the category, "Hero" into "Major Hero" and "Minor Hero"?

:wah: I don't recall us having this trouble with definitions when dealing with "Villains". Why is that?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:56 am

Clodhopper;1319343 wrote: Possible working definition: A hero is someone who changes the world for the better, or stops it changing for the worse, in a way that involves a high degree of personal risk necessarily taken to achieve the result, and that result must echo round the world.

So far we've considered adding "whether he succeeds or not". The next bit is one of perspective. From where I'm sat, for example, both Moshe Dayan and Yasser Arafat qualify as modern heroes. You might find a bunch of Palestinians disagreeing about one suggestion and various Zionists screaming outrage at the other. Is there an objective test that avoids this tendency? Only be qualifying the "better" qualification, which I suggest is entirely subjective. "Better for his cause" would do it.

Or you could stick to subjective and have different lists for different partisan groups.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:21 am

So far we've considered adding "whether he succeeds or not". The next bit is one of perspective. From where I'm sat, for example, both Moshe Dayan and Yasser Arafat qualify as modern heroes. You might find a bunch of Palestinians disagreeing about one suggestion and various Zionists screaming outrage at the other. Is there an objective test that avoids this tendency? Only be qualifying the "better" qualification, which I suggest is entirely subjective. "Better for his cause" would do it.

I think we have to add "whether he or she succeeds or not". I tried to avoid it in order reduce the potential number of candidates, but after a bit of thought my conclusion is that making success a criterion distorts what I think a hero is, too much.

On the issue of perspective, I think it's irrelevant. Whether the Palestinians appreciate Moshe Dayan or the Israelis, Arafat, makes no difference to what they did.

In many ways it can be argued that heroism is remarkably common, from the person jumping into a flooding river to save someone to the person with a severe disability who achieves despite it. That's a wonderful thing. But I suppose I'm looking for the real stand-out heroes...

medicinehat1 · Post by **medicinehat1** » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:03 pm

I think Gorbachev would qualify as a modern-day hero, of mine at least. He accomplished so much and at least we don't have the threat of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) hanging over us (even if that has been replaced by other threats) and millions of people in Eastern Europe are now free and have been so for nearly 21 years. Would it have happened without him, ever? Surely you can say he was at least the catalyst.

Another person who springs to mind is F W De Klerk in South Africa for what he facilitated, working with the ANC and all the various other groups in South Africa.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:10 pm

Would certainly agree De Klerk is a candidate. Always felt he was rather ignored by the media. And yes, Gorbachev is something of a hero of mine. Though I gather quite a few Russians would disagree with us.

About the only thing I can find in common among my heroes is that they are all peacemakers.

Hmm. What about Bob Geldof? Writes he, immediately thinking of a possible exception.

trooper · Post by **trooper** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:38 am

Think the title of Hero is bandied about very easily, but thats about parr for the way the so many words in the English language have been so devalued as to have become worthless.

Awsome seems to now be noun for just about everything from the taste of breakfast cornflakes, to some mediocre performance by a tone deaf pop idiot.

Back on topic..... I am afraid that the last description I would ascribe to those murdering b.....rds Adams and Mcguinness is that of hero.

Back shooting, no warning, non descriminating bombers, and killers of hundreds of inocent men women and children.

I have seen and smelt first hand what a car full of semtex and scrap iron can do, and wil never forget it.

Heroes ? Not in my book.

medicinehat1 · Post by **medicinehat1** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:28 pm

It sounds cliched but if you leave aside the history aspect of it, I think heroes on a day-to-day basis are people like doctors, nurses, teachers, many people in the public sector that ensure a country functions properly. In hard times, they come in for a lot of stick from the government when cut backs are on the horizon and I feel (as a former public sector employee who was made redundant) that what they do should not be forgotten. Part of my prompting to do this post was having seen a really rather moving documentary on the BBC here in the UK about the work of a neurological intensive care unit at the world-renowned Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:42 pm

That may have been the most depressing program I've seen in years. Golly that was miserable. There wasn't a single thing about that program which made me feel oh good, there's a neurological intensive care unit in the country. I'm not saying they don't have success stories but if they do, none of them were presented.

As for the meaning of the word hero, I'm not sure that watering it from its Homeric origins does the word any favours. It's tending toward "he did the best he could and it was better than anyone could have expected", in a dedicated in the teeth of circumstance sort of way but without being on Scott's expedition. I think the word deserves the Scott setting.

fae · Post by **fae** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:55 pm

Definition of 'A Hero' please................then I can give an opinion

fae · Post by **fae** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:59 pm

Ah Spot .. your post reminded me of how much I admire Shackleton,, not very modern though....

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:19 pm

fae;1322539 wrote: Ah Spot .. your post reminded me of how much I admire Shackleton,, not very modern though....

Even more so than Scott, yes. The chap seemed indestructible, going back across the South Atlantic in that extraordinary boat they built themselves to rescue the rest of his crew.

I was in a London museum years ago, reading an account of the rescue from a wall display, when it slowly dawned on me the rowing boat I was idly leaning against was the one they'd built. I should not, admittedly, have leant on it in the first place, but even so. Hallowed wood, that.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:44 am

Hello fae.

I'm afraid we've been having trouble with definitions. But Shackleton would qualify as a hero for me, whereas Scott is much closer to an idiot though he may be a hero too, I'm not sure. Neither are really modern enough to qualify, though. As an arbitrary cutoff point let's say that in this context, modern is post 1950.

And Hello trooper. Not seen you before - welcome!

Think the title of Hero is bandied about very easily, but thats about parr for the way the so many words in the English language have been so devalued as to have become worthless.

Awsome seems to now be noun for just about everything from the taste of breakfast cornflakes, to some mediocre performance by a tone deaf pop idiot.

Back on topic..... I am afraid that the last description I would ascribe to those murdering b.....rds Adams and Mcguinness is that of hero.

Back shooting, no warning, non descriminating bombers, and killers of hundreds of inocent men women and children.

I have seen and smelt first hand what a car full of semtex and scrap iron can do, and wil never forget it.

Heroes ? Not in my book.

Agree that hero is a word devalued by overuse. That's one of the main reason I started the thread - to see if we could agree on real modern heros.

I'm sorry for your experiences with bombs. But that is why Adams and McGuinness are heros of mine - without them we would STILL be getting those bombs. They were villains. They changed, and they changed life in N.Ireland for the better. Or am I just completely wrong about this?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:31 am

What if wiping out human existence is actually good for life?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:38 am

What if wiping out human existence is actually good for life?

Then the greatest heros are the biggest killers. But that's a bit depressing even for Monday morning. I fear there are too many of us, and that overpopulation is a horribly self-correcting problem, with the help of Plague, Famine, Death and War. But that's another thread...

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:43 am

Clodhopper;1322596 wrote: Then the greatest heros are the biggest killers. But that's a bit depressing even for Monday morning. I fear there are too many of us, and that overpopulation is a horribly self-correcting problem, with the help of Plague, Famine, Death and War. But that's another thread...Its not depressing for any living creature other than human.

I think the thread lacks certain perspective. Existence is not exclusive to humans.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:21 am

Well, the thread is about modern heroes - what is a hero, and do any exist in the modern world, and if so who are they?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:34 am

Clodhopper;1322629 wrote: Well, the thread is about modern heroes - what is a hero, and do any exist in the modern world, and if so who are they?I'll take a shot at it with my OED open.

I mentioned Homeric a few posts ago. In classical terms a hero was someone favoured by the gods. Something about you at some particular moment was superhuman and could only have happened because a god granted you that ability. Courage, in those circumstances, was perhaps less to be lauded than in any other circumstance. After all, you couldn't really lose and you had nothing to do with the outcome, you'd been possessed. I think we can discount classical heroism.

Then there's the military application to the "illustrious warrior" and the use of hero to designate "he in whom the interest of the story or plot is centred", both of which are rather specialised and limited.

The general non-military modern use is in the OED's 3. A man who exhibits extraordinary bravery, firmness, fortitude, or greatness of soul, in any course of action, or in connexion with any pursuit, work, or enterprise; a man admired and venerated for his achievements and noble qualities. That's the one this thread's chasing after.

Venerated for greatness of soul, achievements and noble qualities - the Gandhi and Mandela model. Extraordinary bravery, firmness - the Shackleton model. Fortitude - someone who puts up with every disaster life throws at him without complaint and does the best with what's left. That's not the doctors of this world, that's the patients. It's not the recipients of knighthood, it's the OBEs. They're the ones we're most likely to meet and recognize.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:00 pm

Perhaps it can be said that either everyone is a hero or there are no heroes. Both are fine with me.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:45 pm

There are those that have undertook extraordinary and brave, heroic deeds but might not be recognised as being heroic in the traditional sense. A lot of "boys own" stuff that may demonstrate an element of irresponsibility rather than heroism but I suppose to be a hero you have to show a certain maverick, out of the box character.

I'm thinking of someone like Sir Ranulph Feinnes. He did extraordinary things that most people wouldn't contemplate, as both a soldier and an explorer

from Wiki....

Despite suffering from a heart attack and undergoing a double heart bypass operation just four months before, Fiennes joined Stroud again in 2003 to carry out the extraordinary feat of completing seven marathons in seven days on seven continents in the Land Rover 7x7x7 Challenge for the British Heart Foundation.

and....

In 2000, he attempted to walk solo and unsupported to the North Pole. The expedition failed when his sleds fell through weak ice and Fiennes was forced to pull them out by hand. He sustained severe frostbite to the tips of all the fingers on his left hand, forcing him to abandon the attempt. On returning home, his surgeon insisted the necrotic fingertips be retained for several months (to allow regrowth of the remaining healthy tissue) before amputation. Impatient at the pain the dying fingertips caused, Fiennes attempted to remove them himself (in his garden shed) with a fretsaw; this didn't work so he picked up a Black & Decker in the "village" with a micro blade and cut them off just above where the blood & the soreness were.

Ranulph Fiennes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:29 pm

He sounds like someone for whom the mind is paramount and the body a less than perfect tool in its service. He might have learned that pain's less important than action, too. He's at an extreme edge of what people will tolerate and what they're determined to accomplish. Hero's quite a suitable description for him.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:24 pm

I think the key bit of spot's definition is the "extraordinary" bit. A hero must be out of the ordinary, and achieve something extra-ordinary.

A hero must have courage. Exceptional courage. Moral as well as physical.

Woohoo - progress! Cheers spot and Snowfire!

Btw - anyone read Ranulf Fiennes' The Feather Men?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:23 am

Clodhopper;1322729 wrote: I think the key bit of spot's definition is the "extraordinary" bit. A hero must be out of the ordinary, and achieve something extra-ordinary.

A hero must have courage. Exceptional courage. Moral as well as physical.

Woohoo - progress! Cheers spot and Snowfire!

Btw - anyone read Ranulf Fiennes' The Feather Men?

I haven't but having just read a review I will put it on my list

fae · Post by **fae** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:28 pm

I guess my definition of 'a hero' is all the things described, with the addition of putting others first,, extreme activities don't for me qualify , I think that is a subconscious drive to push the limits of human endurance,, and though this takes courage and a focussed determination beyond my comprehension, they may just be doing what they have to do...So a post 50's hero for me is Mandela.... I can admire the likes of Ellen McArther, Ranulph Fiennes, mountaineers... and many others... But for me I cannot call them Heroes....,I am scratching my head to think of a modern equivalent to Shackleton but I cannot...Maybe the era of Heroes is over,,, Or maybe they are unsung ones who we hear little about in our celebrity focussed, instant gratification, fast buck world....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:26 pm

YouTube - The Stranglers - No More Heroes