|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 11:30:21 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Apr 19, 2010 11:30:21 GMT -5
The following was posted in the "Exodus" topic and is probably worthy of its own topic of discussion.
Quote:I have another question. Were the Alamo defenders heroes if they willingly sacrificed their lives for a cause, regardless of what the cause was? If not, then isn't it important for students of the battle to understand fully just what it was they were fighting for? And if there were as many motivations as there were fighters, shouldn't we nevertheless analyze all their various reasons for self-sacrifice? To the extent that the defenders' were engaged in land speculation, or an effort to protect slavery, wasn't their sacrifice less admirable? Just asking.
That's a great question, Jesse, and one on which I'd like to see more discussion. My short answer is no, one shouldn't confer the status of hero on someone regardless of the cause for which they were fighting. I think the comment attributed to Noah Smithwick is probably on target:
With no offense intended to anyone, I think this topic is much more complex and we need to do a lot more work on it.
What is a hero? Many today call the pilot who landed his airliner in the Hudson a hero, but is that heroism or is that just doing your job? Does service in an evil cause (Nazi Germany) render extradionary courage under fire a man unfit for the title? or is it a person's own morality? (compare and contrast German officers Rommerl and Pieper) or perhaps better yet Lee and Grant. Lee served a cause that advocated a great evil, slavery, but freed evey slave he owned (by inheritance) while Grant owned slaves until outlawed by the 13th amendment? Which one was morally superior?
Does service alone make a hero? or does it require an act of courage. In WWII, the majority of American supported service in the military and though the vast majority of American servicemen were drafted they still served. Today you would be hard pressed to fill the ranks needed to fight a total war. Only about 20% of the eligible population are willing to serve. Does that willingness to serve make men heros?
What about legality? The New Orleans Greys technically were "pirates" by the laws at the time, but about half of the Alamo defenders were legal residents of Texas fighting for what they indeed believed their rights that had been usurped by the dictator. Does one being legal and the other clearly illegal reflect on who can be a hero?
When it comes to combat, I think there is a difference between doing your job and doing something that merits the word Hero. Don't get me wrong, Service, in it self (and especially today) deserves recognition. But, simply doing your job merits recognition not the title of hero.
Were there men at the Alamo who performed acts of courage and valor that deserve the title of Hero? IMO, definitly! But, there acts and names are unknown. Were there acts of cowardice? Almost surely. With no way of knowing personal acts, should we render them all heros or all of them cowards?
Or, should we simply recognize them and hold them as examples for their service and sacrifice? Again, I say definitly.
Personally, I think, the word "hero" is way overused today, but I also think what makes a true hero is something that might be worth discussing.
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 11:52:39 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2010 11:52:39 GMT -5
I don't think bravery and heroism are necessarily the same thing, and I don't think standing up for one's beliefs, even in the face of death, is necessarily heroic.
Jim
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 12:01:10 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Apr 19, 2010 12:01:10 GMT -5
I think it is impossible to seperate Hero and courage. It may not be physical courage on the battlefield, but at a minimum it requires moral courage and some kind of risk.
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 12:15:09 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2010 12:15:09 GMT -5
I think it is impossible to seperate Hero and courage. It may not be physical courage on the battlefield, but at a minimum it requires moral courage and some kind of risk. Certainly heroes display courage, but not all of the courageous are heroes. Jim
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 12:22:50 GMT -5
Post by Hiram on Apr 19, 2010 12:22:50 GMT -5
Webster's 1828 defines hero as:
HE''RO, n. [L. heros; Gr. a demigod.]
1. A man of distinguished valor, intrepidity or enterprise in danger; as a hero in arms.
2. A great, illustrious or extraordinary person; as a hero in learning. [Little used.]
3. In a poem, or romance, the principal personage, or the person who has the principal share in the transactions related; as Achilles in the Iliad, Ulysses in the Odyssey, and Aeneas in the Aeneid.
4. In pagan mythology, a hero was an illustrious person, mortal indeed, but supposed by the populace to partake of immortality, and after his death to be placed among the gods.
The first definition pertains to this discussion. "Intrepid" is defined in the same edition as:
[L. intrepidus; in and trepidus, trepido, to tremble.] Literally, not trembling or shaking with fear; hence, fearless; bold; brave; undaunted; as an intrepid soldier.
"Enterprise" as thus:
n. s as z. That which is undertaken, or attempted to be performed; an attempt; a project attempted; particularly, a bold, arduous or hazardous undertaking, either physical or moral. The attack on Stoney-Point was a bold, but successful enterprise. The attempts to evangelize the heathen are noble enterprises.
Their hands cannot perform their enterprise. Job.5.
EN''TERPRISE, v.t. To undertake; to begin and attempt to perform.
The business must be enterprised this night.
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 12:25:46 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 19, 2010 12:25:46 GMT -5
Heroism on the battlefields of history has in most cases---barring the propect of total annihilation---been a case of fighting hard so that your buddies are safe. Veterans always speak about this. They add that the issues and causes behind the wars, on the battlefield, counted for little against this instinct. So heroism isn't a test of courage per se, but how much one cares to get the d**n thing over with as quickly as possible, and by doing so preserve the lives of your fellow soldiers.
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 13:02:35 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2010 13:02:35 GMT -5
In that respect, a lot of the time heroism is going to be a subjective analysis. JIm
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 13:20:58 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 19, 2010 13:20:58 GMT -5
What a fantastic discussion! There are certainly some interesting paradoxs: Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan are "heroes" of the Union, yet these are the same folks who designed the policy for the destruction of the Plains Indians...William Oury is remembered as an Alamo courier and is so honor(although many of us believe he really wasn't) but later helped plan, organize and execute the muder of Apache woman and children at Camp Grant...and I could go on.
The other night after a Civil War Roundtable meeting, several of us got into a discussion that basicly evolved around the question of when did veterans automacticly become heroes? This was not to say that veterans did not deserve respect, but more an thought of the current use of the word hero. I have always had some automatic measure of respect for anyone who serve their country, and when I see a veteran, I try to make a point of thanking them for their service. Yet, as a historian, I know that we are dealing with real people, with real lives, and real emotions. The guy that made the world safe for demoncracy in The Great War may be the same guy who help in a lynch mob in the 1920's....The Union veteran whose service helped free the slaves maybe the guy who made sure no free blacks got off the train...
This discussion got into another side bar about when did Memorial Day become a day we honored every dead person, and when did we start having cut off dates for remembering military service...but that is a whole different topic.
Very valid point of how would you be able to determind which Alamo defender was a "hero" and which was not.
As for the NOGs, the Red Rovers, the Georgia Battalion and such:
When a man hath no freedom to fight for at home, Let him combat for that of his neighbors; Let him think of the glories of Greece and of Rome, And get knocked on the head for his labors.
To do good to mankind is the chivalrous plan, And is always as nobly requited; Then battle for freedom wherever you can, And, if not shot or hanged, you'll get knighted.
by Lord Byron 1820
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 13:38:20 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 19, 2010 13:38:20 GMT -5
I think anyone who stands and fights, or just does an extraoridinarily tough job without shirking from it, is a hero on some level. Not every soldier will capture 80 of the enemy, or machine-gun dozens of banzai attackers, or stand alone in a rear guard action to save the rest of his command. Oftentimes the so-called "heroes" of Ancient Greece, for instance, were remembered for single acts of hand combat and little else. Who can say that they were any more heroic than the unsung G. I. who faces combat and does not care to boast about it in after years? (Bradley on Suribachi is a perfect example of this)
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 13:48:40 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2010 13:48:40 GMT -5
Kevin brings us back to the original premise of the question, "Does a good man who is fighting for a bad cause qualify as a hero?" One man's freedom fighter can be another man's terrorist. Che Guevara is a hero to many, and a monster to others.
As far as the Texas Rev goes, I don't believe you can distill the reason for the revolt down to any one particular issue. There were many issues, and some weighed more heavily on each individual involved than did others.
I think slavery was a much bigger factor in the Texas annexation issue than it was in the revolution, though it was certainly a factor in both.
Personally, I think that conferring the status of "hero" on people is problematic. I'm not a big believer in worshiping people. It makes more sense to me to look at actions or events as courageous or heroic than to see individuals in that light. That might sound like a semantic argument, but I don't mean it to be. People are multi-dimensional, they have good sides and bad. They're fallible, and putting people on pedestals ultimately leads to disappointment.
Sorry this post is a bit scattered. Lots of disjointed thoughts on this subject.
Jim
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 14:32:31 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 19, 2010 14:32:31 GMT -5
Most heroes have had very sloppy, all-too-human lives. (That they were so fallible actually makes them all the more fascinating).
It's the one MOMENT of heroism that makes them heroes. Travis did die heroically---even the Mexicans admitted that, bad as his cause was, to them.
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 16:32:48 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Apr 19, 2010 16:32:48 GMT -5
I suspect that the Alamo defenders' reputation over the years has profited from Santa Anna's dismal historical press. He seems to have been quite a nasty individual, especially when it came to massacring the Goliad garrison which had surrendered. But he's also castigated for allowing no quarter to the Alamo defenders. Yet, didn't Travis threaten to put the Anahuac garrison to the sword if they didn't surrender to his twenty soldiers in 1835? William Davis calls it a bluff, but even so, if that was an acceptable tactic for the goose . . . In any case, it certainly was not Travis' finest hour. And Santa Anna had the rationalization that he was putting down a rebellion, so the enemy were not entitled to the respect due to foes in combat. Hence the cremation, right? So what were the Texians fighting for? For some it was free land. Well, that doesn't sound like a cause worthy of the term "heroic." For some it was preservation of slavery. No comment. For many they were fighting a despot, which brings us back to Santa Anna again. Please, gentlemen, could you advise and analyze just what Santa Anna was going to impose on the Texians that was worth fighting to the death over? Was he going to evict them? Jesse
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 16:45:04 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2010 16:45:04 GMT -5
Travis was also pretty unforgiving toward Bexarenos who didn't share his revolutionary spirit. He wrote that they should be considered enemies and their property confiscated.
Honestly, I think cremation had more to do with practicality than anything else.
Jim
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 16:47:18 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 19, 2010 16:47:18 GMT -5
Remember that the move toward independence grew in stages. There was little support for that at the start and more focus on separating Texas and Coahuilla into two separate states so that Texan colonists could have more direct representation in the Mexican government. When the entire federal system and constitution were canned, it ratcheted up the ante. Each incremental clamp-down fed into a move for total independence (customs collections being enforced, a ban on any new immigration from the U.S., ban on slavery, arresting Austin, Mexican soldiers occupying Texas, etc.).
Add to that at least some desire from the start by people like Houston to find a way to yank Texas away from Mexico and annex it to the U.S. Jackson was a chameleon on this, clearly favoring annexation and expansion in general, but publicly sticking to the official line that we had treaties with Mexico, which the Texans should have considered before moving toward independence with the idea of eventual annexation. Also, feelings among colonists were mixed during the war and not all of them supported it by any means. Once Santa Anna invaded and was rolling over Texan positions, everyone got both scared and angry; Santa Anna actually succeeded in solidifying opposition to the central government and support for independence.
I don't know if that addresses the question of what is heroic at all, but the discussion has drifted this way. I agree that courage and heroism are not the same thing.
Allen
|
|
|
Heros?
Apr 19, 2010 17:17:49 GMT -5
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 19, 2010 17:17:49 GMT -5
Like I said, irrespective of the causes and the reasons concerned for the fighting, the Mexicans called Travis a hero for the way he died. Sanchez-Navarro and De la Pena are just two who did so.
So yes, no matter what Travis really thought of Mexicans, they could still deem him heroic by the manner in which he fought and died by his post.
|
|