A Time for Heroes

When I was a boy, my mother often read to me "Barbara Frietchie," "Horatius at the Bridge," "Casabianca, " and other poems celebrating heroism. At the 79th Street School, my teachers and textbooks recounted inspiring tales of Alvin York, Molly Pitcher and Nathan Hale. The founders were esteemed for pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the cause of liberty. John F. Kennedy was lionized for his war exploits. I was taught to respect policemen and firefighters because they could be called upon at any moment to risk their lives to save others. It was an age of heroes.

Something changed in the '60s. Heroes fell from grace. I don't know why, but we stopped honoring them as we once had. Blame it on Vietnam, if you like, or cultural decadence. The media began to tell us who the "heroes" were: political activists, rock stars, professional athletes.

In 1995, when F-16 pilot Scott O'Grady bailed out over Bosnia and spent four days eating insects, the news magazines and television networks proclaimed him a hero. They got it wrong. Self-preservation is not heroic. Dining on bugs while awaiting rescue does not a hero make. Heroism requires an individual to take great personal risk on behalf of others. It is epitomized by self-sacrifice for the greater good of community or nation.

There have been plenty of heroes in our own back yard. Since its inception in 1904, the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission has awarded medals to 76 Western New Yorkers. The youngest was 10; the oldest, 59. Seven were women. Twenty-eight were teenagers. All endangered themselves attempting to save others. Eleven died for their efforts. Their stories are remarkable.

Donald Tice of North Tonawanda drowned in 1961 while attempting to save 10 young boys caught in an undertow at Port Colborne. Theodore Miller, a one-armed crossing guard, whisked a toddler from the path of a speeding locomotive in Angola in 1917. In 1936, 14-year-old Shirley Beebe of Dunkirk saved an older boy from drowning in Lower Cassadaga Lake. Keith Ellment of Buffalo, a 12-year-old member of his school's safety patrol, saved as many as 20 children from death or injury in 1967 when he ran in front of a runaway truck to herd them to safety. In Lockport in 1996, meter reader Richard Wade raced into a burning house to rescue a child trapped in thick smoke. Sadly, these brave people have been largely forgotten.

The atrocities of September 11, 2001, remind us that we still have heroes in our midst. On that awful day, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and other passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 did not flinch when faced with the unthinkable. They died battling terrorists in the skies over western Pennsylvania, but their courage likely saved thousands of innocent lives.

"Greater love hath no man than this," the Bible tells us, "that a man lay down his life for his friends." This concept endures because heroes are noble models of human conduct who inspire others in times of crisis. We need them. So long as we have passengers willing to throw their bodies against knife-wielding hijackers, and firefighters who resolutely charge up the stairwells of doomed buildings, there is hope for our country in the war that lies before us.

It is time we restored heroism to its former state of grace. We can begin at home by teaching our children about these new heroes, and those who have been forgotten and those who have always been ready to defend us: police officers and firefighters.

This piece has a regional focus, but there are heroes in everyone's community. Check out the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission website at http://www.carnegiehero.org/ to search for medal winners. You may have one right next door.

In 1995, when F-16 pilot Scott O'Grady bailed out over Bosnia and spent four days eating insects, the news magazines and television networks proclaimed him a hero. They got it wrong.

I too never understood why O'Grady was called a hero. The man was doing his job and did it well, but labeling him a hero was quite a stretch.

Good find.

Heroism requires an individual to take great personal risk on behalf of others. It is epitomized by self-sacrifice for the greater good of community or nation.

Flawed premise. Faulty conclusion.

I too never understood why O'Grady was called a hero. The man was doing his job and did it well, but labeling him a hero was quite a stretch.

It's not a matter of being shot down and surviving that makes O'Grady a hero. He deserves quite a bit more gratitude from us for what he endured, and he has my admiration for his survival skills. It's the fact that O'Grady went up there and exposed himself to deadly environment that makes O'Grady and everyone who goes up there a hero.

Then again, the very fact that he chose keep his head and eat bugs while risking starvation rather than surrendering with the hope of a cup o'goulash and a warm cell does elevate him to hero status for me. Would you have had the where with all to endure what he did? Before you answer this question from the comfort of your home, remember he was exposed to the elements for days on end, in a hostile land and had no guarantee of the outcome.

It's true that the word "hero" is often in the eye of the beholder.

O'Grady was well trained for his mission and he applied all those skills and training to survive his mission. I just can't apply the label hero to O'Grady because he had the misfortune of being shot down and surviving four days in a remote area. I do give him great credit for serving our country and putting himself on the line like hundreds of thousands of other servicemen.

For some reason you asked if I would have had the where with all to endure what he did and I would say if I had been as well trained for that mission as he had been I would like to think that yes, I woud have. I don't have the where with all to climb to the summit of Mount Everest, but then I don't consider those that do to be heros.

You suggest that heroism can be defined by action taken to benefit others, but not to the exclusion of alternate definitions. I conclude this based upon your use of the qualifying term, "only." So what other heroic action do you have in mind? Flying a jetliner into a building to bag your prize of four score virgins? How do you define the hero?

Your first statement is correct. Your subsequent ones are insulting, and beneath you.

If a man pursues his vision and dream despite obstacles placed in front of him - be it in building a business or inventing a new innovation - he is acting heroically.

Had you done what O'Grady did in the service of our country, you too would join the ranks of my heroes. If someone climbed to the summit of Mount Everest in the service of our country, they would join the ranks of my heroes. The criteria for me it's a combination of motive and performance.

Your first statement is correct. Your subsequent ones are insulting, and beneath you.

Oh, my.

If a man pursues his vision and dream despite obstacles placed in front of him - be it in building a business or inventing a new innovation - he is acting heroically.

Your opinions are amusing. Hell, I'm a frickin' hero by your definition. You mean all this time I thought I was being steadfast and industrious, I was really being heroic? Damn! Where's my medal?

I'm sorry simple concepts are hard to grasp.

Do you consider the Wright Brothers heroes? I do. Do you consider Edison a hero? I do. Do you consider men who create jobs and provide desired services for their fellow men to be heroes? I do. Jonas Salk? The man who developed the process for blood plasma (Charles Drew)? Robert Goddard? Henry Ford? How about men who build ministries in the face of adversity?

This is the problem. Too often those who take up the sword, for causes noble and base, are looked upon as heroes, while those who trade freely and produce goods and services and life-changing innovations are considered "greedy."

I'm sorry simple concepts are hard to grasp.

Keep plugging at it: you'll grasp them eventually.

You would likely say Osama Bin Laden is a hero because he is pursuing his vision despite the obstacles placed before him.

Did you borrow your definition of heroism from the Self-Esteem crowd?

You insultingly try to package deal the definition and you evade the questions put to you.

I never said that pursuit of self-interest against obstacles was the sole criterion. Any action which violates the rights of others - such as UBL's suicide attacks - is a crime, not heroic.

You are too small to admit your premise was wrong. Very well. I leave you to your tantrum and your ignoratio elenchis.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.