Who we consider heros is something I'm happy to discuss.
That we need good heros, I think, is central to a healthy society. We need to teach our children--and sometimes ourselves--that some ways of living a life are better than others. We need to have examples to look up to, to seek to emulate, of people who contributed to society beyond the normal levels.
I agree that some of our choices of heros are wrongheaded. A teacher who gives of herself to her students daily, who goes above and beyond, who inspires, who molds in good ways, is more a hero to me than someone who can hit a 95 mph fastball. So the choices we make of heroism may be wrong.
But I think the need for heroism and heros is still a basic societal need. And I think our present tendency to look primarily on the negative side of everything and bury the many positive things people do under a blanket of negativism (nattering negativism? <g>) is destructive.
And frankly I don't mind if some of the heroism is historically questionable. As Joseph Campbell points out, myth is essential to a healthy society, and IMO there's nothing wrong with myth overlooking some negatives. Not a popular view today. After all, there are so many historians running around trying to make their reputations, and it's hard to make a reputation repeating the good things about people. It's much easier to make a reputation digging un and trumpeting negatives. And people lap that up.
But IMO we as individuals and we as a society are poorer for it. |
