I wrote (quite some time ago now) of the prediliction towards the use of the term - hero. And how it was being cheapened, in an almost offensive way to those actual heroes (those who put themselves in danger for another).
Well, this time, zoo workers are being befitted the title. It seems that they 'battled' to save the life of an unfortunate rhinoceros. What 'battled' means isn't clear but reading over the article it seemed to involve 'staying back late' and 'ordering pizza'. (Again I find myself asking where I get a job like that).
No-one is a stronger advocate of animal welfare than I but...y'know, it's the same with attributing such a term to firemen, policemen, emergency workers. Newsflash people, these are just people doing a job - for which they're adequately reimbursed thank you very much.
I described what constituted a hero in the original piece - I'll try a different approach this time.
A man's just walking down a street one day and comes across a burning building. It's ablaze and quite obvious the entrance to such would carry with it a high chance of death. However, out of the first floor window, a terrified young boy cries for help. Smoke billows out the window as the flames chase it.
The man, without a thought for himself, rushes in, fights his way up the burning stairs, choking on smoke and virtually blind, locates the kid and carries him to safety, perhaps suffering injury to himself.
This is a heroic act and this man deserves the nomenclature.
Some one staying back for a few hours, much like cricketers, footballers, yes, even firemen, does not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment