The definition of a hero is an individual who is romanticized for their valor, nobility, bravery, or exceptional accomplishments. However, are these qualities what truly makes a hero and is the anti-hero closer to the definition of a hero? To just behave bravely with noble and good intentions seems to be closer to a Disney version of a hero.
Often enough there are so many controversies to a conflict that the hero has to make ugly discussions on what is best and how to solve the problem. From my own observations of anti-heroes, their sometimes unconventional methods achieve more good than those who are charismatic and charming who run into battle with their best intentions.
If we have learned anything from our history is that more suffering can come from another’s best intentions.
Is that not what the Christian missionaries believed themselves to be doing to the Native Americans, and the Indigenous people of Australia by taking their children away to the missionary schools, cutting their hair, and applying punishments for speaking their own language.
Did they not believe they were doing something good by killing another’s way of life. With that being the case can not a hero just be a person who is fighting for what they believes is right.
Is not Robin Hood considered to be one of the greatest heroes maybe one of fiction but still a great hero. He, time and time again broke the law against a corrupt government by taking it’s wealth and giving it to the people made poor by their own ruling leadership.
I believe a hero is one of those subjects that is far too complicated and complex to define as one thing, and perhaps heroism is in the eye of the beholder.