Definition of Honor (stemmed from 9/11 tribute thread)

[JacknCoke]

Since I feel there is to much argument going on in a tribute thread I have opened this up for plenty of argument since there is always so much of it on here. This is in response to Chef's rant about honor and remembrance within that thread.

Here is Meriam-Webster's online definition for honor (pay close attention to the bold part)

1 a : good name or public esteem : reputation b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition <pay honor to our founder>

Now reiterate your point on how we do not "honor" those lost by holding funerals, building monument's or putting flowers on they grave's? I am just in shock at the fact that honoring someone only falls under hidden actions to prevent what happened to them. How is this only remembering them?

here's what Chef said:

No, I'm not saying that you wouldn't feel bad for somebody who died just because you didn't know them. I'm just saying that it's hard to HONOR them; not impossible, but hard. See the example of my funeral for my explanation, but, just to add to it...

Are we really honoring anybody by taking off our baseball hats during the National Anthem? Are we really honoring anybody by putting flowers on their grave? Are we really honoring anybody by having a holiday for them or building them a memorial? No, not necessarily. All we are accomplishing by doing those things is remembering them; not honoring them. There's a big difference.

For instance, if we truly wanted to honor the people that died during the 9/11 attacks, we (as a country) would do whatever we could in order to prevent it from ever happening again, so nobody else would have to suffer through what they went through. Yes, we have taken steps to do such a thing, but building a monument doesn't fit into that category.

Martin Luther King Jr. fought for equal rights. He wanted people of all colors to treat eachother as people, and not as a color. Martin Luther King Jr. preached about equality and how all human beings should love eachother, no matter the color of their skin. For his efforts, the United States designated a holiday for him; Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Does that honor him? No. Fuck no. It just helps us to remember him. If we truly wanted to honor him, then we wouldn't commit hate crimes, discriminate against people of other colors or allow our fears to control our actions towards people who were different than us.

There's a huge difference between remembering somebody and honoring them and I think that a lot of people (not just in this thread) have a hard time realizing that.

I can see how he is correct in saying that you honor them by acting to prevent further cause, but I am a strong believer that I too can honor someone by "remembering" them. Because 'I" as a citizen can not do much in the wake of preventing terror attacks or death I will do more in ways of ceremony and prayer, and that is how I HONOR those lost but never forgotten.

 

[Boothbabe]

I want to clarify some things about what I said in the 9/11 tribute thread because I didn't explain what I meant as well as I meant to do. I believe that none of us can truly honour the victims of 9/11 because honouring someone is a deeply personal matter. Each of us (as well as the victims of 9/11) are unique individuals, we all have our dreams, hopes, morals, principles etc etc. What may be honouring one person may be insulting to another precisely because we are all unique individuals. That's why I said that the only ones who can truly honour the victims are their family and friends because they knew what they were like, they knew their hopes and dreams and morals and principles, how they stood in life. We can honour them generically as a group of people who died in the attacks by making sure nothing like it ever happens again but unless you knew them personally you cannot honour each unique person that died that day (You may actually be dishonouring some of them by holding a memorial without knowing it). It's the same as with the yearly WWII memorial over here in the Netherlands. I can pay my respect to the victims who fought for our freedom. My grandparents on the other hand were truly able to honour some of them because they actually knew and fought with some of them. Another example is Martin Luther King. We can honour him as a man who fought for equality by eradicating rasicm and inequality but we cannot honour the person, that's solely reserved for the people who knew him.

Having said all of this I still believe that the yearly 9/11 memorial is doing nothing to honour the group of people who died in the attacks. The goal should have been peace but instead it is war. I don't think that's honouring them.

I hope I have now made clear what I meant and I'm sorry for the bad blood I raised.

 

[rad2927]

I 'm glad yoy showed the definition-RESPECT is what its all about.

 

[JacknCoke]

We can honour them generically as a group of people who died in the attacks by making sure nothing like it ever happens again

The goal should have been peace but instead it is war. I don't think that's honouring them.

These two statements are quite contradicting IMO.

and again I bring back this definition because I feel you did not read it and just posted in hear to cover for yourself...

b : a showing of usually merited respect

Flame away!!

 

[Boothbabe]

These two statements are quite contradicting IMO.

No, they aren't.

and again I bring back this definition because I feel you did not read it and just posted in hear to cover for yourself...

So because it is Miriam-Websters online definition of honor the whole world must now agree that is the one true definition?

 

[JacknCoke]

No, they aren't.



So because it is Miriam-Websters online definition of honor the whole world must now agree that is the one true definition?

Nope just judging by your comment I felt you did not even read the first thread. I suppose your definition of the word would be wrong in the world of Miriam-Webster, yes.

No, they aren't.

Please explain? Because I can't see how sitting back being "peaceful" with the jolly world of terrorism is the correct method to honor those who lost their lives to a terrorist attack. :2 cents:

 

[maildude]

Honoring=Acts and words of remembrance.

Respectfulness=Preventing similar future acts

Vengeance=Responding in force to the actions

...there are times when one, two, or all three are necessary.

 

[georges]

Honoring=Acts and words of remembrance.

Respectfulness=Preventing similar future acts

Vengeance=Responding in force to the actions

...there are times when one, two, or all three are necessary.

agreed :yesyes:

 

[BlueBalls]

Having said all of this I still believe that the yearly 9/11 memorial is doing nothing to honour the group of people who died in the attacks. The goal should have been peace but instead it is war. I don't think that's honouring them.

I don't know why you're putting every Americans into one box here.

With that one paragraph you seem to leave out every single American citizen and the citizens of many other nations who feel sympathy and sorrow for the acts that occurred on that day who had no effect at all on the political repercussions that followed. Yes, it was disgusting to use these acts for political purposes as Bush and his administration did and we've debated the facts of the situation here ad nauseam over the years and I'm sure you and I would find common ground there. But I don't think every American citizen made that decision, do you? No they did not.

So why turn this into something it's not. The other thread was a place where those that wanted to, to pay their respects to the fallen and yes, to honor them without it getting political. Of course you have every right to be angry at what has happened since 9/11, I think most of us are. But there's a time and a place to air those views, and this wasn't it.

:dunno:

 

[Boothbabe]

I don't know why you're putting every Americans into one box here.

You're right. That was wrong of me to do.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Since I feel there is to much argument going on in a tribute thread I have opened this up for plenty of argument since there is always so much of it on here. This is in response to Chef's rant about honor and remembrance within that thread.

Here is Meriam-Webster's online definition for honor (pay close attention to the bold part)

Now reiterate your point on how we do not "honor" those lost by holding funerals, building monument's or putting flowers on they grave's? I am just in shock at the fact that honoring someone only falls under hidden actions to prevent what happened to them. How is this only remembering them?

First of all, I find it hilarious that my comment inspired an entirely seperate thread. Secondly, I already made my point in the other thread. But, I'll just go ahead and quote myself again, because we apparently need TWO threads for this...

I think I might be the only person here who is going to have big enough nuts to agree with you and admit that you're right (for the most part). Obviously, that was a blanket statement that you made, because we can both agree that not every single American is like that. But, I believe that the majority of Americans are like that.

To everyone who is getting in an uproar over Boothbabe's comment, just look at it this way...

Think of the last time you were at a funeral. Now, think of all the people that showed up to honor the deceased at that funeral. Do you honestly think that all of those people were there to pay respect for the deceased? No, they weren't. In all honesty, a lot of people show up to funerals just so they can say that they were there. A lot of people don't go to funerals (or even tributes for victims of tragedies like 9/11) to "honor the deceased"; they do it just so everybody else can see them there, which makes them feel like they did something nice. That's not honor...that's selfish. And, that's exactly how a lot of Americans are with 9/11.

And...

Also...

It's hard to truly honor somebody that you didn't personally know. Why? Because, you wouldn't really know HOW to honor them. For instance...

I don't want a funeral. I think the idea of having a funeral for someone is completely worthless and is definitely not done to "pay respect" for the dead - it's to comfort the living. Yet, everybody waltzes around and acts as if holding a funeral and gathering in a church is somehow honoring the dead. But, what about me? What about when I die? If I died tomorrow and my parents held a funeral for me a few days later and 500 people showed up...would they really be "paying respect" to me? No. FUCK no. Why? Because, I DON'T WANT A FUNERAL. So, in a sick twist of irony, they are actually disrespecting me (the deceased) by having a funeral for me.

Just something to think about.

FYI - I am an American. I was born and raised here in America, so my thoughts and opinions on how Americans are don't come from an outside perspective. This is what I see and this is what I live with. It's a cliche thing to say, but...ever since the events on 9/11, a lot of Americans have been carrying an overly-macho, false and imitative sense of patriotism. For a lot of Americans, their displays of patriotism are nothing more than a show for their fellow Americans to see. Deny it all you want, but you know it's true.

 

[Spleen]

I have respect for those lost during 9/11. It's a terrible thing that has changed EVERYONES life forever. I was up WTC 3 months before it fell, and my father was in the city at the time, so it was an emotional day for me on a personal level too.

But how can I honour the dead any more than by having respect and feeling sorry for them? Going to a funeral? A mass memorial session? None of those things will make any difference to me, the people who died, and this world as a whole.

I gotta agree with Chef on pretty much everything he has said about the American people in this thread and the previous one. Everyone knows America is the most over-patriotic country on the planet. It's fucking laughable. All the "honor" is just for show, in the majority of cases.

 

[JacknCoke]

For a lot of Americans, their displays of patriotism are nothing more than a show for their fellow Americans to see. Deny it all you want, but you know it's true.

Define A Lot? I don't see this as being a correct statement by any means. A Lot as in a majority or simply just 100 people, 100 is a rather large number of people to some. So Yes if by a lot you mean 100 or possibly 1,000 that is also a lot of people, A lot more than 100 in fact 10 times more then 100. How ever I do not see a majority of people representing patriotism in this way of "show". There are many many different ways to show it. Some are much more obvious than others which is what it sounds like you are referring to, such as attending ceremonies or visiting monuments. I will state this again if you think a majority of people represent patriotism this way you are dead wrong. Just because the ceremonies are televised does that make them less honorable? I just can't see how in any way it is not honorable to hold these services for these people.

Everyone knows America is the most over-patriotic country on the planet. It's fucking laughable. All the "honor" is just for show, in the majority of cases.

Please refer to argument to the first quote. I don't understand what is so "laughable" for people to represent patriotism and honor is a way unlike your own.

As my Grandfather would say; "It takes all kinds to make a world"

In that respect you are more then entitled to your opinion. But I will forever see it as opposite of mine making this a never ending battle.

 

[Wainkerr99]

I have never quite found the will nor emotion to honour past figures as much as think I should. The least I can do is hold them in remembrance.

People are called on to honour, for example, Martin Luther King jr. There is a major artery here in Portland named after him, as I am sure there are roads named after well know public figures elsewhere in the States.

Of course we still have those yucky dollar bills with the same old same old dead Presidents faces on them.

The memory of such people is meant to spur us on to greater co-operation and giving each other leeway. They set an example.

We honour them actively through trying to change.

Others we remember, but do not honour as much, like Pocahontas, for example.

There are many people one can remember, Marie Curie, Helen Keller, etc.

They are honoured in our memory to varying degrees. Usually it is some ceremony were one is supposed to stand around feeling something. I don't know, walk around nodding our heads and looking solemn or something.

The best honouring is when they are remembered, when their work is remembered, then it works it's way into our subconscious minds, affecting our behaviour and influencing future generations to strive for something better along the lines given.

 

[Jagger69]

I believe that none of us can truly honour the victims of 9/11 because honouring someone is a deeply personal matter.

This is by your definition only. Honor means something different to me. I can, and do, honor those with whom I have no personal relationship. I never was at the beaches of Normandy but I know people who were and I know enough about what happened there to be totally capable of honoring their sacrifice, dedication, bravery, patriotism, and should they have been unfortunate enough to have not made it back, memory.

I have no issue with you or Chef or anyone else wanting to bring up this subject. It was the forum that you chose....it seemed very disrespectful to me and was not in tune with the intention that Galactic 22 obviously had in mind when he decided to start a thread as a memorial for the victims of 9-11.

I can totally understand and appreciate your position. There are obviously a lot of people who take convenient advantage of any tragedy to promote themselves. Your point is well-taken and has a definite degree of validity....unfortunately.

Thanks for making a separate thread about this, J&C. :thumbsup:

No harm, no foul. Let's move on.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Define A Lot? I don't see this as being a correct statement by any means. A Lot as in a majority or simply just 100 people, 100 is a rather large number of people to some. So Yes if by a lot you mean 100 or possibly 1,000 that is also a lot of people, A lot more than 100 in fact 10 times more then 100. How ever I do not see a majority of people representing patriotism in this way of "show". There are many many different ways to show it. Some are much more obvious than others which is what it sounds like you are referring to, such as attending ceremonies or visiting monuments. I will state this again if you think a majority of people represent patriotism this way you are dead wrong. Just because the ceremonies are televised does that make them less honorable? I just can't see how in any way it is not honorable to hold these services for these people.

"A lot" isn't a number, therefore, there is no answer for your question.

Do you live in the United States? Because, if you do, then all you have to do is open your eyes and ears and you will see how unpatriotic a lot of these so-called "patriots" really are in this country. I know a lot of people (a SHIT LOAD of people) who think that they are true patriots just because they hang a flag on their porch and take off their hat during the National Anthem. How does blindfully following a meaningless ritual make someone patriotic? If I say "God bless America", does that automatically make me a patriot? If I attend a Memorial Day parade, does that automatically make me a patriot? If I wear a leather bald eagle jacket, does that automatically make me a patriot? The answer is "NO".

And, just because a ceremony is televised doesn't mean that it lacks honor or respect. But, it does mean that a huuuuuge part of it, just like a lot of my fellow Americans' "patriotism", is for show. Otherwise, it wouldn't be on TV.

I just find it absolutely hilarious that sooooo many people are in such a state of denial and can't accept the fact that not everyone who claims to be a patriot is truly what they say they are. People in this country are good at one thing and one thing only; BULLSHIT. And, a lot of the patriotism in this country is just that - BULLSHIT.

Just look at how many kids (yes, KIDS) signed up for the Armed Forces right after the events on 9/11. And, look at how many of those so-called patriots immediately regretted their decision. If they were truly patriotic, they would serve their country without regret. Yet, many of them immediately wanted to come back home. Their decision to join the Armed Forces wasn't influenced by patriotism; it was influenced by emotions - big difference.

FYI - Just to get it out of the way, I will respond now to the comments that gear towards "Are you saying that all members of the Armed Forces are in no way, shape or form patriotic?" - No, not every single person who signed up for the Armed Forces is free of patriotism. Also, not every single American is unpatriotic. I have not once said that ALL Americans are like this and I never will. And, I think people are forgetting that.

 

[skechers]

I totally agree with boothbabe.

Keep your definitions. The dictionary gives you largely accepted meanings of words. But as a writer i've found, once you begin to really USE words, you're using them to express what YOU mean. Not what Websters means. So that definition you posted is as baseless as mine, chefs, boothbabes or anyone else on this thread.


That said, I still agree with boothbabe, and not because she's a cutie. But because what she said makes sense.


I know my "honor" means nothing. It's my actions henceforth that matter. Not lighting candles, or erecting monuments, but living my life like it will be cut as short as those people's were on that day in September, in 2001.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well I think the word "honor" while appropriate is not the best word for the circumstances. The word is commemorate.

You don't need an individually personal relationship to commemorate the passing of someone or some tragic event.

That is largely what is the case with the ceremonies for 9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, etc.

I think BB's primary ire is likely with the elevation of 9/11 to a be all, end all circumstance. I don't disagree with her in that respect because I think that was partly by design of the previous administration in order to create cover for all of the policies some of it's members wanted to implement before hand.....Not that the event needed to be dramatized more than the reality of it. But the previous administration in promulgating their policies (rightly or wrongly) certainly didn't let you forget about 9/11.

That's not me making any of this stuff up, many of their erstwhile statements are part of the public record.

 

[Boothbabe]

I think BB's primary ire is likely with the elevation of 9/11 to a be all, end all circumstance.

Not exactly. I think that most memorials to honor someone or a group of people are more or less selfish. I think a lot of people do it to feel better about themselves so they can say, hey look @ me, I'm honoring him/her/them. Also, the difference with me and most people is that most people define honoring someone by doing what they think it is that honors them. I believe that honoring someone is doing what that person would've wanted you to do to honor him or her.

As for why I said none of us but the ones who knew the victims can truly honor them is because you can't know for sure if you're really honoring them. I'll give you an example. It could very well be that one or some of the victims of 9/11 were of the opinion that big expensive memorials are a money waisting shameless show of selfishness so by doing what you think honors them you could actually be dishonoring him/her/them by doing the exact opposite of how they would want to be honored. That's also why I said that we can honor them generically as a group of people but honoring the unique individuals is reserved solely for those who knew them because how you honor someone by definition varies from person to person precisely because we are all unique.

Jagger even made my point when he said

This is by your definition only. Honor means something different to me. I can, and do, honor those with whom I have no personal relationship. I never was at the beaches of Normandy but I know people who were and I know enough about what happened there to be totally capable of honoring their sacrifice, dedication, bravery, patriotism, and should they have been unfortunate enough to have not made it back, memory.

He said he can honor people with whom he has no personal relationship and uses those who were @ the beaches of Normandy as an example but what he actually does is honor their actions.

their sacrifice, dedication, bravery, patriotism

I think a lot of people don't understand the difference between honoring someones actions and honoring the person.

My grandfather for example was a resistance fighter during WWII who @ the end fought along side American troops. He also saved some of their lives by providing them with valueable information. You can honor his dedication, patriotism, sacrifice and bravery but only his family (wich includes me ofcourse) and friends can honor the person he was.

 

[busenbust]

(9/11. Could quite easily be described - when witnessed and unfolding before our eyes - as definition of horror).