Reblogged from Running Chicken:
Writing in the University of Mary Washington student newspaper, Sarah Grammar identifies the problem with “CNN Heroes”
CNN finds everyday people in communities all over the world who are reaching out to increase the quality of life for those around them. These people devote their lives to others and for many excellent reasons. The 2013 top CNN hero of the year, Chad Pregracke, dedicated his life to cleaning up the Mississippi River when he realized no one else was bothering to do it.
He first started pulling up tires, washing machines and other discarded items out of the river fifteen years ago and has since then gained about 70,000 volunteers. Is this really Heroism though? Cleaning up a mess no one should have made in the first place? Sure it is a great thing for us and for the environment, but should it be considered heroic?
It certainly takes a lot of effort to do the volunteer work that Pregracke did. But it’s not heroism.
Pregracke did not go against his family, or tradition to accomplish his goals; no one stood in his way.
One would say a hero is someone who overcomes obstacles, sometimes dangerous ones. What obstacles were in his way that could not be easily solved? What dangers did he face?
Unquestionably, we should all do more to help other people and our communities; most of us really don’t do much at all. And perhaps that’s what CNN is trying to inspire with its awards show: Put some feel-good stories on television and encourage viewers to do likewise.
But using “hero” to label any positive action that takes some effort or that not everyone is doing is a mistake; it downplays what it really means to do something heroic and, at the same, it also might be setting these “heroes” apart from the rest of us by putting them on a pedestal that we might think is out of our reach.
Running Chicken is the heroism-and-politics science of professor/human rights thinker Ari Kohen. It’s the only blog I read daily. You can check it out for yourself.
My book Lúnasa Days is available on Kindle and in paperback. Get your copy here.
Another thoughtful and astute post, Andre. I like the blog (Ari’s) that you mentioned. Thanks for leading me to it. :-)
Chad was chosen as Hero of the Year by a VOTE online, not by CNN. Also the first environment hero ever. Methinks you protest too much. Kakenya got $50,000, tons in matching donations and global recognition and us now poised for enormous global recognition in 2014. Chad won. Get over it
Billy, you may have missed that this is a reblog—the entire post is a quote of someone else, so telling me to “get over it” is even sillier here than it is in general.
But I think you’re missing the much bigger point, which is to question whether CNN—or its voters, for that matter—are changing the meaning of the word hero. Chad, who sounds awesome and who completely deserves the $50,000 toward his work, could be called many positive things without using a word that implies he risked his life.
You seem to think that anyone who is popular (chosen by voters) is a hero; I don’t think heroism works that way.