[Essay]One Man's Hero

[devonin]

Man, I'm really going a little overboard with the new threads today, but CT has been slowed up a lot recently and could use a new injection of stuff to talk about, so why stop now?

This is a paper I wrote for a class called "Heros, Hype, and History" that looked at the evolving concepts of heroism in a historical context, and the way that they are often portrayed in the media of the time.

This particular assignment was to look at contemporary newspaper writing, looking for accounts of heroism, and to follow the course of the coverage to see how the hero was portrayed.

I completely abandoned the original assignment as ridiculous, and changed my topic with no approval (I got an A- anyway, yay) and instead looked at two opposing views of the same account.

The purpose was to demonstrate how even if we set forward a fairly objective definition of "heroism" with all its positive connotations, the adage is still true: "One man's hero is another man's villain"

Throughout history, there have been no shortage of heroes to come forward, and no shortage of villains for them to oppose. But as the famous saying goes: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The perspective from which events are judged determines the label any given person receives. The victors may write history, but in the case of the following articles, no victor has yet been found, and so we have a unique opportunity to judge one person by two perspectives, the hero and the villain.

The two articles I have chosen for this assignment are both dealing with the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, a Palestinian and the leader of the liberation and resistance group Hamas. The first article, “Israeli Air strike Kills Hamas Founder” is written from the perspective of Israelis, who viewed the Sheik as a person of almost utter evil, leader of a terrorist organisation, and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis due to Palestinian suicide bombings and various attacks. Involved in this report are the Sheik, a taxi-driver who witnessed the attack, one Yussef Haddad, and several other people quoted afterwards for statements, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and a Hamas official named Ismail Haniyeh.

The second article is entitled “Emotional Protests in Slaying of Sheik” and is about the outpouring of emotion from Palestinian citizens at the assassination of somebody they perceived as a spiritual leader, a religious symbol, and now, as a martyr to his faith, dying in the cause of Palestinian freedom. This article also involves the Sheik, and also quotes various Israeli and Palestinian political figures.

As a hero, Yassin meets several of the criteria discussed in this course. He had a practical enemy in the Israeli people, personified in Ariel Sharon. He had several friends and allies in president Arafat, and the other members in Hamas. He most assuredly had a quest, being the freedom of the Palestinian people from what he perceived to be the invading aggressors, the Israelis. His fatal flaw was that he was too open in his life, making it very easy for the Israeli government to know where he would be, and make it that much easier to make an assassination attempt, since he made no attempt to keep a changing schedule, or stay away from getting into routines, often a downfall of public figures who have made enemies. He also quite evidently met the requirements for a tragic death, as well as a heroic sacrifice. He was struck down coming from a mosque, where he had been saying his morning prayers, being now hailed as a martyr for his cause.

Both reporters have a definite bias in their articles. The article in which Yassin is portrayed as a hero is attempting to garner international sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. It continually emphasizes Yassin’s role as a spiritual leader, as someone who called for moderation within Hamas, and as a man who was crippled, confined to a wheelchair. The reporter is clearly trying to make the point that this assassination was completely un-called for, and well outside the bounds of legality, as well as an act likely to cause far more violence than it stops. The proposed audience for this article is the entire international community.

Conversely, the other article portrays Yassin is a vicious butcher, and the mastermind of 112 suicide bombings resulting in the deaths of over 400 civilians. It emphasizes the brutality of Hamas’ actions, and the swarm of violent reprisals, and counter-attacks likely to occur from the killing. Its audience is also intended to be international, and is designed to defend Prime Minister Sharon’s decision in ordering Yassin assassinated.

From one perspective, Yassin was the epitome of the self-made and sacrificing, national hero. He started from a hovel, and became the leader of a large resistance group, dedicated to the freedom of an oppressed people. He was the champion of Palestinian life and freedom, funding a number of free clinics and schools, while encouraging resistance of Israeli occupation. In Israel, as well as several leading nations in the world, including the United States, Yassin is very much the anti-hero. Mastermind of bombings and attacks, he had been viewed, as CNN headline news put it, as “Evil incarnate.”

These two reports tell us many things about both our society, and the society about which the reports write. We as North Americans are very quick to pass judgement on situations, with very little information about them. The situation with Israel and Palestine is unfathomably complex, even to those who live it every day, the situation with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah even more so. That two such differing reports of the same event could occur within respected news sources is very telling.

That it was so difficult to find a publication of an article casting the Sheik in a positive light shows the extent to which the world has already made up its mind about him. Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation in several countries including Canada and the United States. As a result, they are not allowed to maintain an internationally accessible website, and their news publications are only readily available within Palestine. All available news from the very large-scale news publications, as well as the Israeli news only mention the positive aspects of the Sheik’s life in passing, or to counterpoint their own arguments into his inherent evil. This shows a society quick to condemn, quick to take sides, and refusing, whether justified or no, to fairly judge someone perceived to be on “the wrong side.”

Within the societies to whom the articles refer, several conclusions can also be drawn. Israeli society feels its presence in Palestine; the West Bank in particular, is justified. They view attacks on the Israeli citizenry and military forces as acts of terrorism and that they are inherently wrong. Likewise, within Palestine, there is increasing support for the idea that the Israeli occupation is wrong. The frequency and destruction of attacks, protests and suicide bombings against both sides is more than enough evidence of that. Both sides feel they are in the right, and so no medium can be reached

In a situation such as this it is nearly impossible to decide which approach comes the closest to accurately describing Sheik Yassin. Certainly as the nominal leader of Hamas he is at least indirectly responsible for the deaths of many Israelis, which would lend itself to deciding that he qualifies as an anti-hero, but at the same time, many heroes are formed as resistance heroes, battling against oppressors, and from his nations point of view that’s precisely what he did.

The introduction to this paper made reference to the quote ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ and that is really what the whole concept of a hero is all about. As much as Napoleon did to increase the fortunes of France, one would be hard pressed to find such sentiments in England. Likewise Manfred von Richtofen, or Garibaldi. Even meeting the basic criteria for a hero may not be enough to gain one accolades from the world at large. Nobody can say that Sheik Yassin was anything but a hero to the Palestinian people. He was revered as a pillar of the community, and now as a martyr to his nation, working tirelessly to aid Palestinians against their oppressors. At the same time, almost as a Hitler figure, Israelis reviled him as having declared war on Israel, and on Jews specifically. This event has already been referred to as potentially a repeat of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, responsible for sparking off World War one, with respect to the far-reaching consequences. Sheik Ahmed Yassin was a hero for the Palestinian people by any standard, and as such, whether hero or villain, his killing will most certainly have far-reaching historical consequences.

I think the focus of the discussion should be along the lines of the quote from my intro "The perspective from which events are judged determines the label any given person receives. The victors may write history, but in the case of the following articles, no victor has yet been found, and so we have a unique opportunity to judge one person by two perspectives, the hero and the villain."

How important is perspectivism in the way our society functions? How much of what we are shown, and told to believe about events happening worldwide and throughout history is so strongly biased in one direction that we can't even consider the other side's viewpoint?

[Kilroy_x]

I think you have chosen too narrow an interpretation of heroism and too broad a set of implications from your perspective. A child is drowning in a lake. A man jumps in and saves the child. Isn't this heroism? Is there legitimately a way to call this man a villain? I could see a complete moral skeptic arguing that the concept of heroism is incoherent, but I can't see anyone who accepts that values can be given to actions suggesting that a negative value could be given to this act in and of itself, or to this individual in relation to the act.

[devonin]

Well, I was labouring under the particular set of definitions set down in the course. You write for your prof in undergrad work, and if they want you to appeal to a specific set of qualities before applying a given term, you do so.

However, a sufficiently cynical person could, for example, point out that the man may only have saved the child because he knew he would benefit from the publicity of committing a "heroic act" and not out of a genuine desire to do good, and a genuine willingness to risk his life to save the life of another, but that's a whole seperate discussion.

What I was driving at in the paper was more how subjectivism and perspectivism are prevalent in the way that most people look at the world, and that we might benefit from considering the other side now and then rather than cling to the idea that just the ones that are heroes to us are actually heroes.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well, I was labouring under the particular set of definitions set down in the course. You write for your prof in undergrad work, and if they want you to appeal to a specific set of qualities before applying a given term, you do so.

Ok.

However, a sufficiently cynical person could, for example, point out that the man may only have saved the child because he knew he would benefit from the publicity of committing a "heroic act" and not out of a genuine desire to do good, and a genuine willingness to risk his life to save the life of another, but that's a whole seperate discussion.

This wouldn't diminish the heroism of the act unless you hold that altruism is necessary for heroism.

What I was driving at in the paper was more how subjectivism and perspectivism are prevalent in the way that most people look at the world, and that we might benefit from considering the other side now and then rather than cling to the idea that just the ones that are heroes to us are actually heroes.

I think you mean subjectivity and perspective. Subjectivism and Perspectivism are philosophies.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This wouldn't diminish the heroism of the act unless you hold that altruism is necessary for heroism.

Which is something that many people do hold. Whether they ought to or not is a seperate discussion, but many people will look poorly on someone who does "right" things for what they percieve as "wrong" reasons. If nothing else, people look more highly on altruistic good acts than they do on non-altruistic ones, even if the general ends are the same.

I think you mean subjectivity and perspective. Subjectivism and Perspectivism are philosophies.

Well...yes and no. I mean, in its basic form, yes what I was saying was better put as subjectivity and perspective.

However, I also will absolutely suggest that perspectivism plays a large role in how many people view the world. Things are only right or wrong to many people because they personally think they are. Even if large numbers of people disagree with them, they will argue that "It's wrong because I think its wrong" until they are blue in the face, if not simply resort to "Well, it's wrong -to me- because it is"

(Mind you, in most of those cases, the people are just stubborn and largely ignorant rather than actively choosing to espouse perspectivism, but hey)

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Which is something that many people do hold. Whether they ought to or not is a seperate discussion, but many people will look poorly on someone who does "right" things for what they percieve as "wrong" reasons. If nothing else, people look more highly on altruistic good acts than they do on non-altruistic ones, even if the general ends are the same.

You would rather a child drown because its potential savior would only have done it for praise? That's quite literally all I would have to say on the subject.

Incidentally, a true cynic would hold that altruism doesn't exist, so a true cynic would hold that if you prevented people from doing good for selfish reasons, no good would be done.

(Mind you, in most of those cases, the people are just stubborn and largely ignorant rather than actively choosing to espouse perspectivism, but hey)

That would pretty much be my assessment. It's more likely they're trying to hide behind a sense of legitimacy they think comes from issues being subjective than it is that they're articulating themselves in certain manners because of a larger philosophy.

[devonin]

You would rather a child drown because its potential savior would only have done it for praise? That's quite literally all I would have to say on the subject.

Um...no, I would not rather a child drown. I can't even begin to see where this straw man originated. I said "Many people value good deeds motivated by altruism higher than good deeds motivated by non-altruism"

People are more apt to think of someone as a hero, who rescues the drowning child, returns them to their parents, and vanishes into the sunset than they are someone who rescues a drowning child, sticks around for the photo op, and annoounces to everyone there that they are running for mayor.

Don't assume that somehow implies that they'd rather the grandstanding person simply have not saved the child at all, but they will attach a greater amount of "good" to the altruistic person who did it simply because it was good and right to do so.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Um...no, I would not rather a child drown. I can't even begin to see where this straw man originated. I said "Many people value good deeds motivated by altruism higher than good deeds motivated by non-altruism"

You said a number of things, of which that was only one. If "many people will look poorly on someone who does "right" things for what they percieve as "wrong" reasons", then they are condemning the actions of a person based on intention. To which, no, my response is not a straw man.

People are more apt to think of someone as a hero, who rescues the drowning child, returns them to their parents, and vanishes into the sunset than they are someone who rescues a drowning child, sticks around for the photo op, and annoounces to everyone there that they are running for mayor.

Yeah, ok. That wasn't the original statement you made though. You didn't say people will think good of both people but better of the altruistic person, you said that people would think good of the altruistic person and poorly of the non-altruistic person.

[devonin]

And explain to me how looking poorly on someone who did a "good" thing for "bad" reasons demands that they view the good thing as bad?

[Kilroy_x]

You're condemning a person for their intention in relation to their action. While I'm sure it is possible and does occur often that people are condemned simply for intention by itself (which would more appropriately be called something like "character"), that wasn't the statement you made. Thinking poorly of a person who "does the right thing for the wrong reason" is an expression of thinking poorly of a person's intention in relation to their action.

It doesn't matter whether you think positively of the outcome of the action or not. You're saying a person is bad for doing thing x with intent y. Even if you still desire outcome z, you've condemned the process which would generate it. And again, if you were a true cynic, you would hold that this would be a condemnation of the sole process which would generate it.

[devonin]

I said, I'll quote even:

people will look poorly on someone who does "right" things for what they percieve as "wrong" reasons.

Now...taken entirely on its own, I can see how if you wanted to take the cynical view to its most extreme, you could -maybe- get away with suggesting that such a person, by looking poorly on them, is comdemning their actions. I would say the more accurate statement would be that they are condemning the -motives- for the action, which doesn't necessarily mean that they are comdemnig the action, or would wish that the entire thing had not happened.

However, I didn't leave it just at that, I also added the statement:

If nothing else, people look more highly on altruistic good acts than they do on non-altruistic ones, even if the general ends are the same.

It isn't a matter of threshold, its a matter of degree. I'm not saying "Good act for good reasons = good, Good act for bad reasons = bad" I'm saying "Good act for bad reasons = less good than Good act for good reasons." Less good does not mean bad.