Viewing Thread:
"There Goes My Hero, Watch Him as he Goes"

Two rants in as many weeks? Being loved up and eerily happy to a degree I didn't think anthropologically possible clearly agrees with me...

We in the UK have a defining national characteristic that confuses the hell out of me. It's something that we're all aware of and that we all partake in, and I can't decide if it means that we're an embittered nation, or that we simply refuse to respect those whom we are assured are our betters. I'm referring to our great national pastime of building up our heroes before knocking them right back down again.

Oddly it was the Beckham 'scandal' about his allegedly naughty behavior with his PA, Rebecca Loos that got me thinking about this. Once I'd calmed down from my standard "we're living in a world run by a powerful and greedy elite who are making war without any consideration for how it affects ordinary people, yet we're content to let ourselves be diverted by THIS sloppy panda poo of a story?!" position that I always take about frivolous news items (a position which, although I still agree with, sort of indicates just how much I needed to lighten up), I actually started to feel rather sorry for Goldenballs.

I should qualify that; the man has basically consented to be used as a market brand and, although it's making him obscene amounts of cash, it's making his sponsors and advertisers rather more. He's handed over his life to the public domain, and if you live by the sword you die by the sword when it comes to publicity and selling yourself via the media. However, even with all that in mind I was more than a little sympathetic towards him. Why? Well, because the main tone taken by tabloid journalists was that Beckham had let down the people (mainly the children) who idolise and look up to him.

Now maybe this is just me, but how exactly did he let anyone down? By rutting with a bisexual nymphomaniac with a filthy mind and highly developed bedroom skills? Who did he let down by doing that, because surely that's a class above emptying himself up a talentless, vain, bulimic babyprovider with a face like Dutch elm disease. As near as I can tell, he was being criticised for setting a bad example to the precious children of the world. Apparently "millions of kids look up to Beckham; what kind of lesson does it teach them when their hero cheats on his wife?" (although one could say he's teaching them not to marry a Prada-bedecked ghost train skeleton).

So then; that's the answer to the soaring divorce rate in the UK. It's all the fault of David Beckham. Glad we've got that one cleared up. I confidently expect to find that, if he puts on a few pounds, he'll be to blame for the rise in obesity in children. Doubtless Labour’ll soon blame him for increasing voter apathy in elections. Maybe we'll see him cited as the reason for domestic violence next (of course, if he does take it into his head to batter his wife into a bloody smear on the wall, he'd almost certainly get a knighthood).

This is, of course, complete and utter camelbollocks. I don't deny that Beckham is an idol to millions, but to say that his actions will be reflected by his legion of admirers is rather like saying that we're a society so devoid of individuality and ideas that we're content to try and turn our children into clones of anodyne, soulless clones of supposedly perfect people. Unfortunately, it seems that that's exactly what this society is doing.

What do I mean by that? Well, firstly I want to look at how we view heroes in the first place. This little scandal seemed to me to say that if someone is a hero to millions, then those millions should try and emulate that person exactly. They should give up any vestiges of their own personality and identity in order to try and become their hero (and alas, with the number of brainbubblingly poor girlbands that make up the pop industry these days, anyone who knows their way around a football pitch will probably consider a member of Liberty X as their birthright). Then the same tabloids that criticise Beckham for having "let down his fans" run a story about the "evil freak" that is stalking Britney/Xtina/{Insert name of Pop Tart here}.

Even leaving aside the standard media hypocrisy of encouraging people to worship celebrities whilst demonising those whose lives are so empty that they stalk the object of their obsessions, it seems to me that we've got our treatment of heroes all wrong. Yes, a hero is someone to look up to and emulate. But a hero is not someone whom we should expect absolute perfection in every conceivable way from; they're simply someone who sets an example to us to live our life in a particular way. OUR life, not a bland Xeroxed copy of the hero's life. So, for example, my biggest hero in life is Bill Hicks and I try to emulate him in key areas of my life. However, I don't share his philosophy on relationships for example. Nor do I allow my adulation of him to dictate exactly what my opinions are; unlike him, I don't believe that a UFO will come down and rescue me from planet earth to educate and enlighten me about our place in the cosmos (by the way, Hicks did an extraordinary amount of hallucinogens which I think sort of explains his UFO beliefs...).

What my hero-worship of Hicks amounts to is that I'm compelled to speak my mind, tell the truth, and stand up for my beliefs. Beckham is a footballer, so why should anyone’s adulation of him go beyond "I want to be a good footballer"? Why in the name of Christ should he be a role model for the perfect family life? He's a multi millionaire; who can reasonably expect to have a family life involving shopping trips to Milan, villas in 5 countries, and a disposable income so vast that looks like it should be stated as a physics? No-one is criticising him for setting a bad example by giving people false hope of impossible dreams, so why criticise him for something done by depressingly large numbers of people anyway?

Well, because we'll criticise anything and anyone if it means we don't have to acknowledge that the society in which we live has some major flaws in it. Don't want to acknowledge our hypocrisy in marketing youth and young women as being sexually attractive whilst jumping up and down in a frenzied rage about paedophiles? (Of which the finest example has to be the Daily Mail running an article on 15-year-old Charlotte Church having a nice ass, whilst on the opposite page an article about protecting our kids from Paedogeddon screamed out at us) Simple; just blame pornography. Upset that house prices are rising and wages are still low? Then blame immigrants. Don't fancy acknowledging that the failure of the model of an ideal family is losing relevance in the modern western world? No problem, just blame celebrities and say that their infidelity is bringing down western civilisation.

If we want our oh-so-valuable children to grow up to be good footballers, Beckham is as good a role model as any. If we want them to be angry and paranoid middle class white men, Bill Hicks is your chap. If we want them to grow up to be faithful to their partners, tolerant of differences in others, determined, hard working, compassionate, brave, and decent then maybe we should look at ourselves and start closer to home. After all, we can't blame celebrities for everything. However amusing it is to do so.

It wasn't so much as realistic scenario, more of pointing out that if could just be content then we'd have no drive to do anything with our lives, so would live in a fairly lifeless society.

Which wouldn't matter to us because we were content. :-)

But yeah, that couldn't happen realistically. :-)

There goes my hero,oh look he's MISSED A PENALTY.

Well, I think even I'm a bit cynical of it too...

Cyclone wrote:
> It's a completely hypothetical situation, in which everyone is
> content - i.e, whatever happens, contentment reigns.

Heh. Yeah, I can accept that. I'm just rather a cynic about that sort of thing!

It's a completely hypothetical situation, in which everyone is content - i.e, whatever happens, contentment reigns.

Strafio wrote:
> Light, they were talking about a fictional world where people WHERE
> content, just with the basics.
>
> If people could be content with the basics then they'd be happy, but
> this contentment would mean there was no drive to improve things.
> So this meant that there was a complete lack of creativity and
> imagination.
> No culture whatsoever.

So how would it then be possible to sustain that level of contentment when there is no-one to fix our various labour saving devices when they go wrong?
>
>
> Now the question is, while to us this lack of creativity makes life
> seem pointless to us, but seeing as we only do all this in persuit of
> happiness...?

I don't fully understand what you mean here; are you saying that we pursue a lack of creativity as a state of happiness? If so, I disagree. But could you clarify (I've got Monday morning brainfart today)

Light, they were talking about a fictional world where people WHERE content, just with the basics.

If people could be content with the basics then they'd be happy, but this contentment would mean there was no drive to improve things.
So this meant that there was a complete lack of creativity and imagination.
No culture whatsoever.


Now the question is, while to us this lack of creativity makes life seem pointless to us, but seeing as we only do all this in persuit of happiness...?

Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> You can have contentment without being fulfilled? Looks like we need
> to define some words before we go any further - both contentment and
> fullfilment are pretty abstract concepts.

Heh; I'm gonna sound elitist here but what the hell...



Okay; in your initial post you talked about chavs being contented. On a basic level they are in that they have enough food, enough friends, and fairly simple desires out of life. When I'm talking about contentment, I'm talking about the pursuit of happiness.

When I talk about fulfilment, I'm not necessarily talking about happiness. To be fulfilled as a human being may take blood, sweat, and tears. Look at, for example, scientists making a particular area of study their lifes work. Or finally making it as an actor after years of toil. Fulfilment, to me, suggests a certain amount of effort. Contentment does not.

So therefore, your standard chav may be content to live a burberry-bedecked life of endless boredom and drudge. However, the huge number of them who complain that they are constantly bored would suggest that they're not very fulfilled.

You can have contentment without being fulfilled? Looks like we need to define some words before we go any further - both contentment and fullfilment are pretty abstract concepts.

There goes my hero, he's ordinary.

Good read. I'm quite fond of anger at the moment.