Uncomfortable calling fallen soldiers "heroes"?

[Deleted]

I ran across this article about a comment by MSNBC host Chris Hayes.

The TV host said: 'I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes".

'I feel... uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.'

He went on: 'I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that.

'But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic.' He then added: 'But maybe I'm wrong about that.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151055/Chris-Hayes-Outrage-TV-host-says-uncomfortable-calling-fallen-soldiers-heroes.html#ixzz1wAzIgRYf

What do you think? I disagree with him that calling fallen soldiers heroes is a way to justify more fighting.

[Deleted]

What do you think? I disagree with him that calling fallen soldiers heroes is a way to justify more fighting.

Okay, at the risk of many people taking what I am saying out of context I'll say it anyway. I agree with him. The number of times we must go to war are much fewer than the number of times we do. And part of how we get away with it is to glorify soldiers. At least with our speech, though if you look at their pay grades and health services you know it is only lip service. We recognise it when countries we disagree with do it, and pretend we are completely sincere when we do it.

If we ever said some soldier was an idiot for agreeing to take the assignment that got him killed we would have a lot less soldiers agreeing. Everyone wants to be a hero, no one wants to be an idiot.

This is not a slam on soldiers in any way.

[Deleted]

'But it seems to me that we marshal this world in a way that is problematic.'

I suppose he should be applauded for his bravery, though it doesn't quite go far enough for my tastes.

May 28, 2012 10:18:49 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

The number of times we must go to war are much fewer than the number of times we do. And part of how we get away with it is to glorify soldiers. At least with our speech, though if you look at their pay grades and health services you know it is only lip service.

Well noted. This dogmatic veneration of the military is one of the pillars of the jingoism called upon to serve the government and its corporate partners. The US is sleep-walking into a variation on the fascist dictatorship.

On the plus side -I guess this affords us the opportunity to observe the role the media plays in conditioning the public mind; nowhere in the article is his fundamental point addressed. Instead we have 'outrage', character assassinations, ad hominem attacks, and an ovine restatement of the mantra that "they are heroes".

Amusingly enough the Daily Mail are also running a poll asking "Should MSNBC's Chris Hayes be fired for saying he is 'uncomfortable' calling fallen soldier 'heroes'?"

Irony I guess since the Daily Mail and their ilk would be first in line to assert that fallen soldiers are heroes precisely because it is 'freedom' they are fighting for, though apparently this doesn't include the freedom to express concerns over US foreign policy.

You couldn't make it up.

[Deleted]

Someone who dies in battle for their country and lays down their life is doing an heroic act. Yes, heroes. Some overpaid TV host sitting in a chair in an air conditioned studio drinking a latte should be more about spending more time to honor them instead of nitpicking.

[Deleted]

The question is are they doing it "for their country"? Or is it done to benefit big businesses and an elite few.

"Irony I guess since the Daily Mail and their ilk would be first in line to assert that fallen soldiers are heroes precisely because it is 'freedom' they are fighting for, though apparently this doesn't include the freedom to express concerns over US foreign policy."

I hear ya.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2012 10:22:11 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

The question is are they doing it "for their country"? Or is it done to benefit big businesses and an elite few.

Yeh, I was about to say similar -they are not dying for their country, they are dying for the politicians and corporations who stand to profit from the endeavour. Is this heroism or folly?

[Spellbound454]

Calling them "heroes" is a scrap of appeasement .....for widows and fatherless children.

In essence its all they have got.......since they have to start the long and lonely grieving process in a state of utter bewilderment.

The dead can look after themselves...... Its the living who have to make sense of it.

So yeah...they are heroes.

They died for the state....and so that "gutless wonder" can sleep safe in his bed.

[Deleted]

Good points Spellbound. And, politicians should not be sending anyone into battle unless they are absolutely convinced that doing so is necessary and worth the high price of lost lives.

[zibazinski]

for Shooby and Spellbound when I can.

[Deleted]

Calling them "heroes" is a scrap of appeasement .....for widows and fatherless children.

That's an interesting consideration, Spell, but do you think those most prominently enforcing the label of 'hero' care about the widows and fatherless children -the politicians and the corporations who are so very keen to push such terminology into the public mind?

That's not to say that there aren't acts of heroism on both sides of a given conflict, but the pungency of political correctness involved here just reeks of fascism.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jul 1, 2012 15:59:08 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

for Shooby and Spellbound when I can.

[thyme4change]

Are we a better country for berating our Vietnam Vets? Is that our alternative? Did that really keep us out of any wars following that? I mean - didn't we go to Libya just a couple years later? I agree with spellbound. Humiliating our servicemen is no alternative. We go out of our way to not do that. If we go too far, I don't think it causes additional wars. Unstable political relationships cause wars.

[Green Eyed Lady]

And what should we call them instead? We have lots of time to think of something while we post here freely and without fear of any repercussions. Thanks to them and others that went before them. What shall we call them? Stupid? Misguided? Martyrs for the political machine? Warmongers? Maybe just stark raving idiots?

I'll choose "hero", thanks.

[Spellbound454]

Its a big ask for soldiers and their families....... for them to be dragged off to some hell hole and possibly die in the workplace.

The least we could do is be respectful to the dead....who are often very young and with their lives ahead of them.

It doesnt happen to your average shop worker or truck driver...and it would be very easy for those who this doesnt concern to ignore the sacrifrice other people and their families have made.

Someone has to defend the State.....and many people would think, "As long as its not me or mine I will continue to enjoy living in a free country whilst someone else does the dirty work"
Not good enough!... They should know...We all should know and understand just how ugly this business is.

Calling them "heroes" is not about the State machine...Its not about the soldiers themselves since they wouldnt even consider it important.

Its about those who have to make sense of a horrible situation......... and end up burying their loved ones.

[thyme4change]

Someone has to defend the State.....and many people would think, "As long as its not me or mine I will continue to enjoy living in a free country whilst someone else does the dirty work"

Not only do many people think that, but they also think "And I should get to criticize them for doing it in a way I do not totally approve."

[Deleted]

Don't think he's suggested that anyone be berated, nor that the dead should be disrespected, rather that extolling the perceived heroism of the military takes the focus away from what it is they actually do, which, if I'm not reading too deeply into what he said, is not an unreasonable point for him to have made. Even now the discussion has yet to move on to the crux of his offering -'we marshal this world in a way that is problematic', which seems to lend credence to the point.

To illustrate -German propaganda during WW2 similarly glorified military deaths as 'heroic', and perhaps there were some heroes among them, though this hardly suffices as a blanket term when their actions are viewed against the wider context of what Germany was trying to achieve at that time.

[thyme4change]

The question is are they doing it "for their country"? Or is it done to benefit big businesses and an elite few.

I don't think any of the people that are doing it say "I'm going to go out and kill some people so some rich white dude can get a bigger bonus." So, no matter why they are sent there, their intentions are honest and pure and admirable. Don't hold them accountable and punish their families because others happen to profit.