Dear Editor,
For years, there have been calls to make Bob Marley a national hero for his musical exploits. The performance of our athletes in recent times has now spurred calls by many to make some of these athletes heroes, too. However, I think it would be a big mistake if we start making these entertainers and athletes into heroes.
Do you know what makes one a hero? A hero is supposed to be one who, by his actions, has caused earth-shaking changes, both for his people and others. The world must have been made a different place by a hero.
With this requirement, it is hard to see why we want any of these entertainers and athletes to be made heroes.
Don't get me wrong; I do believe that Bob Marley and many of our more famous athletes deserve great recognition. However, the recognition of national hero is a special one, and I don't think we should treat such an honour with any more triviality.
Why do I say any more? It's because I am of the strong view that while all seven heroes whom we have deserve recognition, the credibility of our current list of heroes is already not as good as it should be. I strongly believe that what we should be doing is reducing the number of heroes we now have, instead of increasing it.
In at least two cases -- George William Gordon and Marcus Garvey -- there are concerns. As far as I can see, Gordon is only a hero because he had some connection to Paul Bogle, while Garvey is only a hero because he gave some feel-good marches and speeches. No real change can really be credited to them. No real change can be credited to any of these athletes or entertainers, either, so the hero recognition for any of them is not deserved.
Let us give our people heroes who will inspire us to do great things and change our destiny and status in real and tangible ways. Entertainment and feel-good activities may be fine for a while, but they don't make us great. They certainly are not hero-making achievements!
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
No more hero devaluation
-->
For years, there have been calls to make Bob Marley a national hero for his musical exploits. The performance of our athletes in recent times has now spurred calls by many to make some of these athletes heroes, too. However, I think it would be a big mistake if we start making these entertainers and athletes into heroes.
Do you know what makes one a hero? A hero is supposed to be one who, by his actions, has caused earth-shaking changes, both for his people and others. The world must have been made a different place by a hero.
With this requirement, it is hard to see why we want any of these entertainers and athletes to be made heroes.
Don't get me wrong; I do believe that Bob Marley and many of our more famous athletes deserve great recognition. However, the recognition of national hero is a special one, and I don't think we should treat such an honour with any more triviality.
Why do I say any more? It's because I am of the strong view that while all seven heroes whom we have deserve recognition, the credibility of our current list of heroes is already not as good as it should be. I strongly believe that what we should be doing is reducing the number of heroes we now have, instead of increasing it.
In at least two cases -- George William Gordon and Marcus Garvey -- there are concerns. As far as I can see, Gordon is only a hero because he had some connection to Paul Bogle, while Garvey is only a hero because he gave some feel-good marches and speeches. No real change can really be credited to them. No real change can be credited to any of these athletes or entertainers, either, so the hero recognition for any of them is not deserved.
Let us give our people heroes who will inspire us to do great things and change our destiny and status in real and tangible ways. Entertainment and feel-good activities may be fine for a while, but they don't make us great. They certainly are not hero-making achievements!
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
No more hero devaluation
-->