As a kid we often defined a hero are persons like Superman, Batman were our heroes. Why? Mm well I also don’t know however this is what I know: they are extra super amazing wearing their ultimately fantastic costumes. Ohh.. one more thing, they have super powers!!! They fight the bad guys and save the weak and innocent. They do good things and save lives.
However as we grow and our minds mature, we see a lot more of everything. We would soon realize that heroes as are not really what we expected. The real heroes as we would notice are merely just human, as from Shakespeare “they have their exits and entrances”. We see them do good things for their side of the society but at the same time do harm (kill/destroy/devour) the side of the society they are against.
From Yahoo Answers:
1. somebody who helps without waiting for any reward.. somebody who thinks at the other people which are in trouble... i hope its good =))
2. Someone who has made a sacrifice to do something great for what they believe in. Though, "hero" is all in perspective. One might regard someone as a hero, while someone on the other side might regard him as a villain. I think a good example of a hero is Martin Luther King Jr.
3. I think heroism is defined by self sacrifice. Anyone who burdens themselves to help another....
Heroes can vary in a very wide range:
There is Rizal who is against revolutions but is pro to government reforms, though his works later led to the bloody Philippine Island natives uprising. His intentions were really something to be admired and followed, however he was not so clear about his dislikes in bloody conflict. Well because of this a lot of natives’ bloods were spilled during the early and immature revolution.
There is Bonifacio who believed that there is no hope for reforms and only uprisings and revolt is the only way to succeed. He was a good leader considering the fact that he was able to recruit a lot of men for the revolutions. Although the revolution that he planned was done prematurely and again not much is achieved but blood loss for most of the natives in the islands.
These two people are actually regarded (not yet proclaimed) as national heroes not because of what they achieved in the revolution but rather what they made to inspire, create, and strengthen the sense that Philippines is a country or simply the Filipino nationhood. This eventually built the need to be independence for every citizen in the Filipino nation. Additionally, they died for the country making the Filipino people believe that they are rightfully heroes.
Today, here is Manny Pacquiao, a world renowned Filipino boxer, Oftentimes he is regarded as a hero by a lot of Filipinos, though some people believe that making him a national hero would embarrass the former heroes (such as Rizal, Bonifacio, Luna, Tandang Sora, etc.) who were not yet even declared as national heroes yet.
On March 28, 1993 , President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No.75 entitled “Creating the National Heroes Committee Under the Office of the President”.
The principal duty of the Committee is to study, evaluate and recommend Filipino national personages/heroes in due recognition of their sterling character and remarkable achievements for the country.
Criteria for National Heroes
(Adopted by the Technical Committee of the National Heroes Committee on June 3, 1993 , Manila . Members of the Committee included Drs. Onofre D. Corpuz, Samuel K. Tan, Marcelino Foronda, Alfredo Lagmay, Bernardita R. Churchill, Serafin D. Quiason, Ambeth Ocampo, then known as Dom Ignacio Maria, Prof. Minerva Gonzales and Mrs. Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil)
1. Heroes are those who have a concept of nation and thereafter aspire and struggle for the nation’s freedom. Our own struggle for freedom was begun by Bonifacio and finished by Aguinaldo, the latter formally declaring the revolution’s success. In reality, however, a revolution has no end. Revolutions are only the beginning. One cannot aspire to be free only to sink back into bondage.
2. Heroes are those who define and contribute to a system or life of freedom and order for a nation. Freedom without order will only lead to anarchy. Therefore, heroes are those who make the nation’s constitution and laws, such as Mabini and Recto. To the latter, constitutions are only the beginning; for it is the people living under the constitution that truly constitute a nation.
3. Heroes are those who contribute to the quality of life and destiny of a nation. (As defined by Dr. Onofre D. Corpuz)
Additional Criteria for Heroes
(Adopted by the Technical Committee of the National Heroes Committee on November 15, 1995, Manila)
1. A hero is part of the people’s expression. But the process of a people’s internalization of a hero’s life and works takes time, with the youth forming a part of the internalization.
2. A hero thinks of the future, especially the future generations.
3. The choice of a hero involves not only the recounting of an episode or events in history, but of the entire process that made this particular person a hero. (As defined by Dr. Alfredo Lagmay)
However as the criteria are laid down on the table, didn’t anyone notice that these cannot be quantified? Hello… one can easily say that he made that he aspired and fought for the freedom of the nation. If one will say that he fought by not selling Philippine land to foreign nationals or companies then he is rightfully a national hero right?
Whatever. So what I believe is that national heroes should be decided by the people (same as what democratic governments do) not by just a fancy committee or something. The masses are the only one who can rightfully declare a hero based from what they know and what they believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment