In Emersons essay he speaks of heroes, and the fact that the law will never make a difference to

them, and that their glory would shine and accomplish itself until the end, but this generalization is
simply unfit, and untrue. The term hero is too ambiguous and debatable for its own benefit. The
Crusades were fought with religious implications, yet, the people fighting them thought of themselves as
heroes. Look at another hero, Mao Zedong, a man who founded what is now the Peoples Republic of
China is also a man who caused the largest genocide in recorded history. Many would subsequently
point at Ghandi, or other men and women to break the law and cause very large reforming movements.
The fact is that there are many people, who are debatably heroes, but the law does matter and ones
evils will over shadow ones good deeds. Emersons generalization is false due to the ambiguity and
opinionated evidence of someone being a hero, and the fact that many who were thought of as heroes
committed some of the worst atrocities known in history.
The Crusaders were men of swords and crosses. They were to face on the battlefield the men of
Islamic faith to prevent it from spreading any further. Both groups were blessed before battle, told they
were heroes, and motivated with the idea that upon death not only will they be heroes, but martyrs. In
both groups their holy books had portions denouncing murder and warfare, but these men did not
follow those holy laws. These men caused much of the religious hatred still around today. Emerson was
right in one sense, the laws made no difference to the heroes. These men slew each other on the
battlefield in the name of a religion and the thought that they were being heroes. A murderer is not a
hero. A racist is not a hero. A bigot is not a hero. The Crusaders were not heroes, and the consequences
for the Crusades are still evident today to both sides, outliving the glory of either force. Mao Zedong was
a communist advocate, and then leader of the Communist Party of China. He led the Chinese revolution
and brought China back into the hands of the Chinese, and out of foreign grasp. He then subsequently
began starving the peasant farmers of his country to try and advance his country. There simply wouldnt
be a good time for food production for the weak when his country needed to manufacture metal. Mao
was a hero. Mao is the perfect example of the flaw in Emersons generalization. Mao was considered a
hero, he broke the law to cause a revolution, and yet he killed in most estimates higher than forty-five
million people, and his infamy has grossly overshadowed his greatness. The Crusaders were heroes, and
they have caused some of the greatest amounts of global strife and conflict, not to mention death,
murder, and hatred.
Some may agree with Emerson that laws will make no difference to a hero, and their greatness
will shine unto the end. Some will point at Ghandi or Martin Luther King, people who broke laws to
make positive influences in their societies. Without arguing the heroics of either figure or other figures,
the laws in their cases seem inappropriate for an example of a validity of Emersons statement. In both
cases the laws were very oppressive and had their own evils themselves. Laws do matter, but there
simply havent been a significant number of heroes who have broken reasonable laws and had positive
effects not to mention their glory shine until the end. Charles Manson was thought to be a hero by his
followers, and he assured them that murder was a good deed and they would be rewarded for it. He is
still in jail for his crimes, as are his followers. He broke a reasonable law of not murdering one another,
and his infamy has overtaken his glory. To elaborate further, laws exist for a reason, and a hero
consistently breaking laws of significant nature is typically not much of a hero. Emersons generalization
is simply not accurate for this reason.
What and who are heroes? There are so many different examples of heroes that it is a term
riddled with ambiguity and opinionated beliefs. Emersons generalization is simply inaccurate due to the
fact that anyone can be considered a hero. The Crusaders were considered heroes. Suicide bombers are
often told that they are heroes. Hitler was thought of as a hero by many of his followers. It also fails to
recognize those who have committed some of the darkest evils, rather than goods, as heroes. Mao
Zedong was still a hero after killing millions, but his glory did not continue to shine. Hitlers glory did not
shine past his life. Emerson failed to recognize that not all heroes are genuinely good, and that they will
have glory to follow them.