I think this is a very narrow definition of hero, even from a homeric perspective. Most of those whom I consider heroes have nothing to do with tragic scenarios or war.
I also think this is a very Campbellian view of heroes. Most of the people I consider as heroes (Einstein, for example), have nothing to do with tragedy (unless of course, you consider the whole human condition thing as being a tragedy)
Einstein was a genius, but he was also a jerk to his first wife and kids. His existence was certainly a big win for humanity I don't think of him as a hero, just a super smart guy that followed his passion. Being a good parent, or employee, friend is commendable but not heroic. The word heroic has become watered down to describe people that do commendable things.
Knowing you can be killed, disfigured, or severely injured within the next few minutes and still doing your job is heroic. Dan Carlin's hardcore history podcast described British soldiers in WW1 looking at their watches and knowing that in 5 minutes they would be going over the top into no man's land and would very likely be killed or injured. That hit me for some reason. Imagine taking your last look at the world around you and knowing that in two minutes you would probably be dead or wrenching around on the ground in complete agony, but you still go.
Are you still a hero if you die invading a country for its resources? What if you die because someone asked you to walk into gunfire for no reason and you did? Is it the death that makes the hero, or the defending others? If the latter, why does the hero have to die?
I think a heroic act happens at the individual level in the moment. It's when someone has to overcome their survival instinct to do their job in a given moment. Are terrorist heroic? No, they want to die because they think they will be rewarded. Where there heroic soldiers fighting on every side in WW2? I think so. Just because Hitler was a psycho doesn't mean that a German soldier jumping on a grenade to save his close personal friends didn't act heroically. He wanted to go home to his wife and kids but in an instant, without thinking about the macro political motives behind the leaders of his country, ignored his survival instinct and saved a few friends. Dying doesn't make you a hero, but I do think by definition a heroic act is when an individual ignores their self preservation instinct with no expectation of reward or gain to do a task that they might rather not do. I think the word is watered down to describe people that do nice things, but aren't risking literal life and limb.
I get what you are trying to say, and i think it boils down to how you define a hero. If you had asked me about a heroic act, my definition would be very close to yours, while for a hero, my definition has now become, as you put it, a little watered down, thanks to how the word hero is used in todays culture.
Dave Hackworth was a sergeant at 15. He entered Army service in 1945, right after WWII, after a year in the Merchant Marine. He had a long career, fought in all the wars of that era, won many medals, leaving as a full colonel, and later became a military reporter for Newsweek.
We have a statue put up for the child soldiers who fought and died during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. It's in a pretty prominent location, hard to miss if you're a tourist in Warsaw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C5%82y_Powstaniec
Hundreds of thousands of civilians also died in that uprising, many of them children who didn't fight. There's no statue for them.
WTF was wrong with the Navy, taking away a wounded soldier's disability benefits and medals and putting him in jail after he'd served so bravely in a deadly sea battle?
And why did it take until the 1980's for this man to get disability benefits restored? That doesn't exactly renew my faith in government.
Awesome story of these kids who sacrificed so much. But in those days males were groomed to become the man in the family when they reached teenage years, a lot of these kids worked in the local town factory or were farmers.
Alexander the Great was 25 years old when he conquered the known world. Man is hardwired to conquer in all aspects of life. The desire to explore and to experience and see the unknown or undiscovered.
Is it also awesome that the Japanese soldiers they fought also sacrificed so much? If so, then how is it a good thing for people to kill each other with no apparent purpose? If not then who decides which side is right and which is wrong?
Add to your list the desire to kill other people. That's a human instinct which was, as the article seems to suggest, a strong motivator for this boy. Much like what drives westerners to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS, or what drives a mass shooter in America. We shouldn't deny that soldiers often choose their job for the opportunity and pleasure of killing.
Read Flyboys. The Japanese soldiers, especially the officers were acting in a way that could truly be described as evil. One jaw dropping story involved an officer raping a woman, killing her, and then adding her to a stew that was fed to his soldiers. Another mind blowing tid bit was about a Japanese commanding officer that dug up buried American airmen that had been decapitated so he could eat their livers.
While you're at it read "With the Old Breed" by EB Sledge. The Marines in the pacific had the joy of living in the mud next to their own excrement and the magot infested corpses of their best buddies for months at a time so that they could stop the kinds of atrocracies described in Flyboys.
Why are child soldiers a human rights violation when they happen in Africa, but a hero when they happen in America? Is it the difference between volunteering and being forced to fight? That shouldn't apply to children who are too young to make those decisions themselves.
He still broke the law, and the navy still didn't check his ID thoroughly. If we wanted child soldiers, the age limit would have been reduced from 16 to 13. That shows they were already socially unacceptable even during WWII.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
The same sentence can be said about a young man from Syria going to war for Isis. Except that you probably wouldn't put "respect" at the end of your sentence.
Truly just wars may be few and far between but the Pacific war was one of them. I get annoyed by flag waving and chest thumping as much as the next guy but very few people alive today would try to justify Japans actions in WW2. I think it's ok to use the word "respect" in this case. Comparing a Marine or Sailor who broke the rules to fight in the Pacific to a kid fighting with ISIS is a real stretch.
I don't think it is, really. A 13 year old child is not going to understand what they are fighting for, doesn't matter if they are from Syria or from US. We don't let 13 year olds have sex because they don't understand what they are doing, we don't let them drink alcohol, smoke or drive for the same reason - but going to war is somehow laudable? The only reason why there's "respect" in here is that he fought for the "good" side. If he fought for the "bad" side we would all be saying how horrible it was that they used children soldiers.
I would respect a "Bad side in ww2" Japanese or German boy who decided to lie about his age to enlist and AFTER seeing the horrors of combat still acted more heroic than most grown men. I think this guy was a complete bad ass.
Without tragedy and wars, there will be no heroes and that is a good thing.
Remember, the people who get medal of honors are either dead or are involved in horrific situations.