‘Unhappy is the land that is in need of hero.

’
In spite having only ten words, this maxim has posed such a timeless resonance as well as
contemporary urgency, especially at the heights of oppressive socio-political climate. To unravel
its importance, one must dissect its flesh until it exposes its implications. Hence, upon
contemplating, I have gathered numerous points why this claim still has a pragmatic position
towards dealing the existential reality.
Let us reel back to a historical definition of a hero. A hero is a person who embraces martyrdom
to counteract the pulsating measures of injustice and subjugations, thus commonly resorting to
violence and active movements. With this definition, we could infer a myriad of claims hidden
behind the curtain—that is the image of a hero—leaving us three logical deduced points: the
thriving of violence and activism, the presence of oppression, and the martyrdom that is self-
sacrificing.
First, the rise of violence and bloody activism. Instinctively, humans fight the enemies the same
way beasts fight in the animal world. But since we are a rational being, we enable a more
sophisticated battle—that is in pursuit to diplomacy and pacifism. In today’s eminent principle,
diplomacy is of paramount importance in bringing the world in harmony. Hence, the rise of
violence and activism, caused by heroes such as the likes of Andres Bonifacio who pursued a
bloody revolution, brought only a foe against diplomacy.
Second, the presence of oppression. Having the need of a hero implies the presence of oppression.
The hero is the one who challenge the existing dogma that rooted the injustice among the
minorities. Hence, using the instrument of logic, the need for hero means that a certain change is
wanted commonly by people. And if that change is badly wanted and perennially hurdled, then
oppression must exist.
Third, the martyrdom that is self-sacrificing. This contention could be explained more fluently
using the work of Rizal and under the literary character of Pilosopong Tasyo. In a certain scene in
the Noli Me Tangere, Ibarra asked Pilosopong Tasyo a very thought-provoking question: ‘Why do
you write if you don’t want to be read?’ Tasyo cleverly answered with his overflowing wisdom.
Clearly, Tasyo questioned the very fundamental definition of a hero—a hero that take the image
of a silent fighter and not merely the embrace for martyrdom in the midst of violence and at the
expense of sacrificing oneself. He believed that words were as sharp as swords in rebelling against
the dogma not to change the present but as an instrument for the future generation in understanding
the past events in the purpose of avoiding such a cruel destiny. The words of Tasyo centered on
pacifism that was void of violence and war. Henceforth, a hero does not always refer to the people
who had been screaming for change but also those unsung who are silently forging a wordily
weapon that would be a meaningful gift for the next generation. Indeed, Tasyo was an unsung
hero in story.
Challenging an existing dogma or a political regime has a high price to pay. In the times of
suppression, the people uproar for a hero to pay out this villainous circumstance. Thus, for a land
that is need of hero is a land that is filled with destitution. And how unhappy are those land that
is deprived of liberty and freedom.
`