RIHLA # 11

---

1a. what makes someone a hero are the things they do to benefit others and the qualities they have. Qualities heroes should have are bravery, independence, courage, kindness, positive attitude, and unselfishness.

1b. No, not all people agree on who should be considered a hero/ saint/..Etc. because people need to have things in common with that person in order to have interest and respect. Things that people look at in a hero are their religion, achievements, desires, background, and race. For example if a person doesn’t like a hero because they have different religion then the hero will be viewed differently because they would see that their religion may give them hope, motivation, or may even be their foundation on which they started.

2. It isn’t easy to distinguish between good people and heroes because while they may be similar they aren’t identical. Good people do everyday things that can make a difference in their life and in others. For example, a good person may help a stranger who has fell get up, give a crying child a piece of candy, say good morning to people, or come into work with a smile on their face. But then again this is only known by the people who are around them but when the person is alone they could be going above and beyond on the expectations given to them by those who he/she influences. Heroes do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons and most importantly they get acknowledged for it. I think opinions of Joan of Arc changed because she was looked over by someone who took interest in her. Looking at her situation, her background, what she did like lead soldiers, had good intentions, and died for what she believed in could make people change their views on her. It also depends on the time period the person examining her case is in because if those people aren’t as harsh, have similar focuses, and see that what she did we don’t do today then she can be viewed in many ways. The last thing I think should be taken into consideration is the person who is examining the historical figure because they shouldn’t be bias.

3. I think it is fair to revise how we feel about historical figures based on new evidence because if the new evidence shows something that is not accepted in that time then that historical figure should be looked over by a non-bias person.

4. No I don’t think people from history should be held accountable for things they couldn’t have known. My reason is since the person had no way of knowing then they shouldn’t be accused but others should try and figure out the reason the person didn’t know the things. No, someone shouldn’t be considered evil for something they thought was right at the moment not knowing what we do today. This would be unfair because times change and people can either be proud looking back on what they have done or regret it, if the person feels like what they did was an accomplishment and we feel it is wrong because we don’t do the things people used, it shouldn’t be punished.

---