I wanted to do a post on the most recent of Van Jones jerko rants, but when I saw this one, I know that I could not let it go without comment.
A panel on a MSNBC show hosted by Chris Hayes opted to use this Memorial Day weekend to state the participant's problems with utilizing the term hero to describe our military veterans.
"Chris Hayes introduces the issue:
“I feel uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’ because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, 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, you know, 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. But maybe I’m wrong about that…”
I suspect that Mr. Hayes is not so uncomfortable with the idea of justifying war as he is with the obvious fact that those who willingly sacrifice their lives in campaigns against our enemies, are far better people than he could aspire to be in his wildest dreams. Cowards tend to constitute the bulk of those who advocate Leftist positions. Instead of dealing with this fact, they veil their awareness of their own shortcomings with a veneer of pseud-intellectual snobbery. This manifests itself in speaking of those who do in fact fight as gullible or ignorant individuals who are too trusting and uneducated to know that they are being wrongfully employed.
The idea that people such as these try to project is that the only reason that they are not fighting is that, well, they are just too smart for that. Only the county bumpkins and other dense people (Read patriotic conservatives) would subject themselves to such dangers.
"John McWhorter of the New York Daily News continued: “…I would almost rather not say ‘hero’ and come up with a more neutral term…I share your discomfort with those words because they are argumentational strategies in themselves, often without wanting to be.' :
Mr. McWhoter, how about "unfortunate saps"? would that label make you feel any better? Would that ease the guilt that you undoubtedly feel for not doing what they have?
"Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast, who recently compared Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin on the same network, added: “There are people who are genuine heroes, but the kind of implication is that death is what makes you a hero, you know as opposed to any kind of affirmative act or moral act…' "
Ms. Goldberg blatantly lied in this case. No one ever suggested that one has to have died or have been in combat to be a hero. She of course is well aware of this and was simply trying to steer the discussion her way. Goldberg's version of a hero is probably an Occupy puke who is living off his student loans (which he has no intention of paying) and receiving donated food while he demands more entitlements from the government.
"After reassuring that there is honor and valor in the military, Goldberg said: “It’s more just that, it’s a way of ennobling sacrifices that have a lot of nobility for the individual, but to say that someone kind of died heroically suggests that they died worthily, or that they died in the pursuit of a worthy endeavor…” [Emphasis added]"
Another Leftist ploy from Ms. Goldberg. She is insinuating that our soldiers have not died for worthy causes. In answer to that I would hold that, although we have entered into wars that, in retrospect, have come to be thought of as poor decisions on the part of our government, that fact has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not one's sacrifice was noble or heroic. As with any enterprise, decisions must be made with the facts that are known at the time. Even if the event itself was poorly conceived, the sacrifice is still just as noble as that of the person who fought in a war that had universal support. In my opinion, the most noble of virtues may sometimes be in sacrificing oneself for the very people who appreciate your action the least.
We see yet another example of the effects of the purposeful omissions of the history of Western Civilization from our schools. When people grow up unaware of the heroic sacrifices of those who preceded us, they are easily misled by those who would denigrate noble and heroic acts. Whether it be an ancient Greek or Roman hero, a Saxon force which stood off a Danish attack, a Christian martyr who refused to offer sacrifice to the Emperor, or the seven Jewish brothers and their mother who too suffered horrible deaths for refusing to do things contrary to their faith, heroism has been an integral part of what made us what we are today. Our culture is one that, without heroism of the individual, would not exist today in any recognizable manner.
My personal opinion is that each and every member of this panel who made or agreed with these comments can be aptly described from this line from Henry V. The King notes that, years from now, those who survived the coming battle will be able to recount those events and that those who were comfortably at home while the war was on will think poorly of themselves for not being there. The only difference is that in place of admitting that those who are away from home are better than we, our panelists affect to consider our fallen heroes as having "died for nothing".
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. "
The Left would prefer to hold the position of Wilfred Owen. Mr. Owen wrote after the horrid and widespread carnage of WWI, a conflict that I would state should never have occurred. I hold that the poem from which the line below was taken should be understood in its historical context - it was written in 1918. I, though, still honor the memory of those who fell in that war and, regardless of the reasons for it, am grateful for their intentions.
"To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory, The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.(15)" (it is sweet and right to die for your country)"http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html
I again am remained of the Spartan man, Pedaritus, who was told that he was not to be admitted to the 300 of Officer Class of his city (From what I have read, I gather that the guy was not fairly considered and that those who made the decision may not have liked him). Upon being told that he did not make the cut, had an expression that suggested that he was delighted.. Those who informed him ( possibly vexed since Pedaritus was not sulking) asked why he looked so happy after hearing bad news.
Pedaritus replied that he was happy that his city had 300 men who were better than he.
We all know that those who have sacrificed are better than we are. The only difference is that some of us admit that fact and others cover it up by saying that that the word hero should not be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment