Definition of Hero

     It seems that in the last several decades, the definition of the word hero has changed considerably.  According to common dictionary definition, a hero is someone "admired for their courage, exploits, especially in war, and also someone admired for their qualities and achievements, and regarded as an ideal or model."  This is sort of a compilation of definitions from a dictionary.  In awarding decorations for heroism, the military has its own definition, but basically it is the same, with the proviso that would include, "above and beyond the call of duty (requirements for the job, etc.), and "disregard for personal safety in carrying out the duty," so on and so forth.
     Within the strict definition of the word hero, be it dictionary or military version, it is therefore, inappropriate to call every first responder and everyone in uniform a "hero," which appears to be the common practice today.  Most surely these individuals, members of the military and the first responders in our cities and states, deserve to be respected and in some cases admired, when they perform their duties "above and beyond."  But to apply a blanket label of "heroes" to all is not only inaccurate, but lessens the value of the word hero!  I know that when I was in uniform during the Vietnam era, my fellow servicemen and I would have been somewhat embarrassed if we were referred to as "heroes," if we hadn't actually performed any heroic acts!
     First and  foremost, all of these individuals, be they military or first responders, are performing their assigned duties.  In other words, it is just a job.  Perhaps it exposes them to danger, but still it is just a job that in reality is no different from being a bank clerk, a shopkeeper, or a postman!   If, in doing their job they do perform above and beyond the requirements of the job, risk their personal safety for the sake of others, then indeed they are performing a heroic act and can be called heroes.  But otherwise, let's not over do it and call everyone a hero, as it seems to be the practice today!  Over 55,000 men and women in uniform lost their lives in Vietnam,  all deserving of due respect and honor, but not but all were heroes.  Some were indeed heroes, but others were simply doing their jobs when they met their end. 
     The same applies to those who perished and are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Although the numbers are much smaller than in Vietnam, nevertheless it is a significant number.  But just like their predecessors, some were/are heroes, others simply performing their assigned duties.  Pat Tillman, who turned down a financially lucrative NFL career to join the army after 9/11 is considered a hero by many.  I believe he made an honorable and difficult decision to bypass NFL and join the army.  For that he deserves recognition.  But he did not die while trying to save others or to complete a mission.  Despite army's attempt to cover up the whole thing, he died as a result of "friendly fire."  Tillman was a hero in a sense that he could be regarded as an "ideal or model" but not from a military point of view.  Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to "trash" Tillman or anyone else, as I said, he can be considered a hero from a different perspective.  I am simply trying to point out that we seem to be using the term "hero" a bit too loosely, applying the label too easily.
     Hollywood, and for that matter movie and TV show makers world wide, tend to use their "artistic licenses" a bit too freely when it comes to heroes.  Individuals that are just ordinary, according to records, suddenly become heroes.  At times, they even turn things around completely and someone who was perhaps even cowardly in fact becomes a heroic figure on screen!  But more often, just a normal individual or someone just trying to survive suddenly becomes a hero on the big screen or the TV.  Such was the case of possibly the unluckiest or luckiest (depends on how you look at it) individual in World War Two era!
     I had previously mention him briefly in one of the earlier blogs.   Kyoungjong Yang (Yang Kyoungjong) was a young Korean who was in the Japanese Imperial Army just before World War Two.  His incredible journey took him from Japanese army to Soviet Red Army and finally to the Nazi German Army before he was captured by American soldiers.  Yang ended up in Chicago and lived a very quiet life, never discussed his war experience with anyone, not even his family members.  Upon his death a South Korean movie maker decided to chronicle his fantastic journey during the war.  In the movie he is portrayed as a heroic young man who was forced into the Japanese army, later forced into the Soviet Army, and still later forced to serve the Nazi Germans.  He is portrayed as a brave soldier who rose in rank in each of the armies where he served.  Unfortunately there isn't anyone who can attest to his military record in those three services and there are no surviving official records.
     He may have very well been a brave soldier, who knows?  One thing is for certain, he was a survivor!  I question whether he was the hero that he was portrayed in the movie, but I do not question the fact that he was a survivor!  Disregarding the fictionalized version in the movie and how he was "forced" to join the Japanese, the Soviets, and finally the Nazis, let's look at some of the factual information. 
     He served in the Japanese Kwantung Army, the elite of the Japanese Imperial Army and he did not serve in a work battalion where typically conscripted Koreans were assigned.  By his own admission, he volunteered to serve in the Japanese army because he needed a job!  He was trained to be a mechanic with a tank battalion, an important job that is given to regular army soldiers!  So, he was not drafted, as the movie made out, but volunteered to serve in Japan's finest army unit!  He was captured by the Soviets during the Battle of Nomanhan before World War Two.  He was sent to the POW camp but shortly emerged from the camp as a tank mechanic for the Soviet Red Army.  Once again, he was not conscripted out of the POW camp, he volunteered because it was a way to survive!  When he was captured by the Germans, the same thing happened.  The German army was short of manpower and offered POWs, especially those of Russia's ethnic minority, to serve with German army.  He, like some other POWs, chose to volunteer and serve with the Germans to survive! 
     Of course he was not a Nazi nor was he a communist!  He was just a survivor, an incredible survivor.  But, he was not a hero, like the movie made him out to be.  His life in the three armies deserved to be chronicled in the movie to illustrate the struggles of a true survivor.  But it should not have been made into some sort of a heroic action film, which made it into fiction!  I am not being critical of the man nor the movie makers, just pointing out that truth sometimes can be very elusive and the definition of hero confusing!