I recently applied to a position in which, on the the application, it asked who my hero was, with the caveat that I was not allowed to choose a relative. Aside from being a bit of a cop-out on their part, it made me realize a few things, the major one being that I have no one person that I idolize above all others. There are many an amazing person in the history of the world who certainly deserve a great deal of admiration for the things that they have done, whether they have been retroactively made in to a villain by historical reconstruction or were always controversial, and thus never universally accepted. As such, I was left with a bit of a sticking point. In fact, of all the questions on the application, it was the one I took the longest time to answer.
(The list below is not my full list, just the ones who came to mind when I started writing this post. My full list is most likely much longer.)
Certainly I am a fan of the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. Sure, there are many things he may have done wrong. Some allege he was an adulterer. That may be true, but looking at the pros and cons of the man, I can't necessarily say that, if such a claim is true, it comes to close to tarnishing his record of positive contributions to this world.
I also admire Malcolm X, for his work, his ability to state the truth (or what he perceived to be the truth) regardless of how it made people feel, and his ability to continue to learn from those around him and ultimately change his views of the world and the people in it. Many do not know of the transformation he underwent in terms of his "militancy" in the year or two leading up to his untimely death. It is sometimes noted that as Malcolm X was softening his position, Martin Luther King, Jr. was hardening his. Given enough time, the two opposite poles of the Civil Rights Movement may have met somewhere in the middle. That would have been a force to be reckoned with.
My grandfather, a WWII veteran who was shot down over Italy, would've been another choice. The fact that he survived and was able to make it back to Allied territory via the Italian Resistance, without knowing a word of Italian, is enough of a reason to admire someone. However, he always carried about him an unflappable stoicism (for the short time that I knew him), a calm demeanor, an even keel if you will. I'm sure he had his moments of undisciplined emotion, but I never saw them. For the seven years I knew him, I knew a warm smile, cigar smoke, whiskers and a physically intimidating softy.
While we're at it, my mom. Despite not being perfect, she managed to raise (with my dad) two functional, increasingly successful, independent children with pragmatic, realistic views of the world. It was her goal to instill many values in us: respect for women; the value of intelligence; common decency; civility; pride; compassion and consideration for others; the drive to do whatever it takes to do whatever it is that makes us happy; and the knowledge that if you do what it is that makes you happy, the money will follow. I would probably be a faceless MBA grad working at a job I hate because it paid well had it not been for those lessons.
John Brown. How can I possibly put down John Brown, who was tried and executed for treasonous acts, as my hero? The fact of the matter is, we have very little in common, even outside of the fact that he's dead and I'm not. His logic for the abolition of slavery came from a deeply religious Christian context. To him, slavery was the of the utmost injustice one man could force upon another, and that the murder of slave owners, and in fact, an armed revolution in the southern part of the United States, would be justified in the eyes of God to eliminate the travesty of humans as property. I agree with him, in a sense, that one could only be a slave owner and a Christian with a serious use of cognitive dissonance or a bizarre interpretation of the Christian faith. Or, I suppose, the belief that skin color also determines the level of humanity. That being said, Brown's overarching views are not entirely without merit and it is no surprise a man so deeply committed to his beliefs in Christianity would extend that zealotry to an injustice he viewed with vehement contempt. Would I have taken up arms with him? I don't know. I'll honestly never know. But I can say that I would've at least heard him out.
I ultimately went with Malcolm X, for his ability to keep an open mind even when his convictions were so strong. I have no idea how that was received, and I don't care. I just think it is really unfair for someone to use the caveat, "No relatives." I think it should have read, "if you choose a relative, explain why you picked that person."
I suppose I'll keep that in mind when it becomes my job to hire people.
