I have been bussy applying to Universities, and filling our bursiaries and scholarships. Here is one Essay I wrote for a group who run a Scholarship called Great Canadian Questions. They give you six questions to choose from and you read 4 articles on each and then form your own opinion. This is mine on Does, Canada need more Heros/Symboles, could you please be as burtally honest as possible. I really want to make this the best essay, I can:






Benevolence, and it’s Repercussions, Personified:
Hero or Heroines, are in many cultures, the defining points of their history. In Greece, they have Aristotle, Plato and Alexander the Great. France has, Napoleon, Charles the Hammer, and Descartes. The United States, has George Washington, Edison, and Lincoln. When thinking of these nations these names will almost always appear. These giants among the mortals, “demigods” as Peter Newman, states in his article Canadian Heroes, have created (in their respective nations), an idea of nationalism, and pride in ones nation. When comparing heroes of almost any country to Canada, Canada seems to be dwarfed. The question then arises: Should Canada, have more heroes? Simply the answer is no. To say that Canada needs more heroes, is to claim that nationalism is a good thing. Nationalism is just a nation wide arrogance, and heroes just exemplify this arrogance. Really heroism just is a way to glorify, some horrible event and heroism and nationalism lead to separation and war. As Buddhidharma once wrote, “To go from mortal to Buddha, you must put an end to Karma, nurture your awareness, and accept what life brings you.”#, although he speaks of the Samsara (continuous births and rebirths), it can easily be applied to other such cycles. The goal of Dharma (Buddhist path to enlightenment), is to achieve Buddha, or end suffering. The goal we, in the west, are trying to end, is war, so, to end war, we must get rid of the hero, like, to end suffering, you must get rid of the Karma whether it is good or bad.

A majority of heroes have been created in moments of war or during times of other horrible events. Anne Frank, for example, is glorified, and made into a heroine despite the fact that she really accomplished nothing but fill in the pages of her dairy while, in a situation, no one should have been in to begin with. Heroic merely because she was not quivering at every possible moment. While there are the heroes of science and philosophy such as Einstein, or Newton, they are rarely considered national heroes. When in comparison to Dickens or Whitman, one famous for writing about his horrible childhood in 20 different storylines the other the promoter of the American Dream/ American Nationalism through poetry. The majority of national heroes are created to glorify horrors, is this suppose to give anyone the “touchstones to live by” that Mr. Newman wished these heroes to become. In the idea that war heroes become the place to make moral discussions, is not really a location in which the majority of the populous would wish for humanity to go. Thus having heroes for our nation is not in our best interest at the present or in our future.

The idea of heroes and nationalism, have already taken their toll on the Canadian people. In Quebec we see a strong regionalism. This strong feeling has lead to a province wide desire to leave our nation. Quebec have many French Heroes, many who believed in leaving our nation, many who accomplished many great acts. There is Duplessis, Boisclair, Levesque, and De Gaulle, plus many more. The Separation of Canada and Quebec can be found in the idea that the French Quebecois believe that they can run a country better then the Anglos. This may lead some to agree with Peter Newman’s idea that “Chances are the twenty-first century will be more of the same: we’ll fumble through quadrennial Quebec referenda; pretend that national survival is a glorious option: somehow talk ourselves into the twenty-second century” as stated in the Canadian Heroes articles he wrote. On the other hand if we develop more heroes as Mr. Newman and even Charlotte Gary suggest in their articles, would this not just feed a fire of separation and war, instead of extinguishing it. The regionalism, caused by heroes in Quebec, is similar to that of the South in the US Civil War, such as Stonewall Jackson, and Coronal Custard. This creating one of the bloodiest revolutions ever. The South felt unstoppable, since the South created the lineage and attributes the military genius of General Lee, the Bravery shown in Custard’s Last Stand, and the grit and guts of Stonewall Jackson, no Yankee would ever force them to give up their slaves. Heroes, create allusions, and these allusions, create arrogance, and the arrogance, well that births war.

Nationalism and heroism, create the idea that one country is better than another. This was often taught by Aristotle, in the idea that there were Greeks and there were barbarians. Under this idea, Alexander the Great justified killing those who were different from himself, in form of war. Greece is not the only example, World War 1, was almost a direct result of nationalism. The English, Russian, Austria-Hungarian, German, French, and Italian empires, all developed the illusion that their country is the best to live in, therefore all other countries should listen to them so they can experience the life they have been enjoying in their great country. This lead to a huge wave of the glory to die in battle and the thoughts of the romantic hero, that is created by these beautiful battles. Well, that war happened, and it did not turn out the way a majority had expected it to. Millions died, and it only lasted four years. The romantic heroes were replaced by the blundering generals. Canada left that war regarding all as heroes, and only identifying a couple glory worthy heroes. Why so few? Well, heroism creates nationalism, which creates war, which creates heroes. Canada truly saw this as The War to End All Wars, so they had to end this cycle somehow. Canada has advanced this policy through the ages and is one of the most peaceful nations in the world. In comparison to our southern neighbours who are very rich in heroism, nationalism, and war. The Michael Moore movie Canadian Bacon, joked that a US president was not going to be re-elected since he was to go down in history as the first president never to go to war. This leads him to immediately invade Canada. Although this is a comedy, it rises an important cultural difference between Canada and the United states. Canadians are genuinely peaceful and the United States are not. It is fact that the Americans, in their creation of this unmatchable identity in hero worship and nationalism, obviously know everything, therefore if a country is not following what the US is doing, then that nation is wrong and the US is not afraid to help point that nation in the right direction. Canada is different in the fact we do not believe we hold all the answers, in fact we encourage other nations to help us find the answers, creating our legendary Cultural Mosaic. This tolerance would only be jeopardized by the creation of nationalism, and the creation of heroes.

Nationalism has taken more lives then saved. Heroism is the fuel in which nationalism is created. Thus heroism does more harm than help. Heroism is the worship of people who did what they needed to do in situation that should never have occurred. Also heroism leads to war, and separation. Canada is a peaceful country, we are a moral country, we are not a country that feels itself better than others. In our nation we have felt little acts of terrorism, little internal conflict (in comparison to others), and little violence. We are a different people and to follow suit with people who do not live in our condition and do not share our peaceful views, would only lead to the destruction of everything good that is Canada. We are not perfect, but we are adaptable. All of our good would be jeopardized by the rebirth of national heroes, and frankly it is not worth it.

Well, I would tend to disagree on a few points (I don't believe in Canada's "cultural mosaic" for example, and feel that that mosaic would cause more problems than it would solve). Though for the purposes of your essay...

I would suggest cutting down on some of the commas, especially in the first paragraph. "The United States, has George Washington, Edison, and Lincoln." There, the first comma is not only unecessary, it destroys the rhythm of the sentence when being read in the mind.

The rest are mostly spelling and typing errors I caught.

Anne Frank filled in her diary, not her dairy. Coronal Custard should be 'Colonel Custer' (go spellings that don't make sense!).

Likewise the sentence: "Heroes, create allusions, and these allusions, create arrogance, and the arrogance, well that births war"

Heroes create allusions, these allusions create arrogance, and arrogance creates (or begets) war.

There are numerous grammatical issues, and comma usage seems to be a major issue. If you are working on the rule, "Add a comma anywhere you pause" -- stop. Major uses can be reduced to items in a list, introductory clauses, compound sentence joined with a conjunction, and in special cases connected to reporting dialogue.

I like the impulse you have as a thinker to question what is the easy answer and the way that you attempted to tie in thinking about things you've read and world events. For me, the organization of the essay is a major issue. At times, I lose sense of how these ideas are supposed to be proving to me that Canada does not need heroes and how these distinct ideas relate to the main issue.

I'm sorry to be so long winded, but I am what I am. Overall, I think you have some interesting ideas that can be further by organizing the essay more strongly to be persuasive.

Thank you very much! I have always had trouble with spelling and grammer, but I will definatly make those changes you suggest. I will read over my Essay and probabaly make a new paragraph or two...

PS I always try to question the obvious... or at least as long as I can remember. I have made a concious habit of doing it, ever since I watched a Documentry called What the Bleep Do You Know which I found very enlightening

Well I have a couple of thoughts about your essay, but they primarily deal with the thesis presented not so much the techinical writing aspects(which is my biggest struggle when it comes to essay writing).

First, not all heroes are created in war or "horrible events". Consider Tommy Douglas, to many Canadians, he is a hero because he "created" medicare.(Actually, I was reading in my Saskatchewan politics textbook an essay on the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan. And, as it turns out, the Minister of Health for the Liberals in 1935 suggested a state funded healthcare system, however, the province couldn't afford it at the time, so the idea was scrapped. But I'm getting off topic here.) Tommy Douglas is so worshipped to the point where he was named the "greatest Canadian" in a contest.

Also, give consideration to the realization that in today's world, many celebrities are worshipped like heroes. The bulk of them(Whayne Gretzky, Tiger Woods, etc.) have become heroes because of the great things they have done on the field/court/course or whatever their field of play is. The same could be said for guys like Bill Gates, Donald Trump etc.

Secondly, as much as I'd like to say so, I think the situations in Quebec, and what happened in U.S. civil war are vastly different. So much so that to compare them to each other would be a bit unfair. There are some comparisons(provincial/states rights vs federal rights) but the rational behind each is different. And your suggestion of slavery being the cause of the civil war is false. The American civil war was mainly about state rights. That and the great variation in economic conditions between southern states and northern states.

I think you should reconsider this statement. I mean honestly, there are plenty of Canadians(on all sides of the political spectrum) who feel that Canada is somehow morally superior to the United States. Particularly with George W. Bush as a president.

Last year, I was fortunate enough to have Allan Blakeney(a former premier of Saskatchewan) lecuter to my Canadian politics class. A quote that I got from him that I found very interesting, and incredibly true is the following, "To define Canadianism is unCanadian". And I can honestly say that I think that sums up this country very near perfectly. So, to make blanket statements that all Canadins are this or that, is not a good idea as far as i'm concerned.

Also, I think you fail to mention that at times, nationalism has done good things. For example, look at Germany during the 30s(I can hear the groans already.... not another nazi reference) When Hitler became Chancellor he in essence saved Germany(although at a huge cost, which is why we forget he did do some good things). Or, if you want something that isn't so negative, look at the space race between the Soviets and the U.S. from the mid fifties to the end of the sixties with Neil Armstrong landing on the moon. The advancement of technology to travel in space was pushed forward, to the point where a man finally landed on the moon. Would that have happened without a space race? Possibly, but who knows how and when that would come about.

Yep, those Tutoinic Germans, lost of Nationalism, and WW2 as a result. Americans, nationalism during the Cold war and yet again not very peaceful.

Tommy Douglas is a hero, and creates an arogance among our people. He made many people proud to be Canadian because he was Canadian, somehow in the mix of creating heroes, we tend to feel unnatural bonds. I will cheer for Team Caanda this Febuary, because I am a proud Canadian, In events such as Sking or Bi-Atholians, my Faith in Canada may be misguided, I am blinded my my nationalism, to see the true compenditors. I am a proud Canadian, and if I were a gambling may, I would also be broke!



I should rephrase the argument though you are right, to something like, for atruibutes that our shown by the common person, just explified becasue of certain situations. Grezty is a hard worker, but so is my mom, is she a national hero no, Gretzky is good at hockey and thus a hero.

I will remove that excerp about the the American Civil War being about slavery, but about the comparison, it was merely to show another example of internal conflict, one that must are fimular with.


One makes many generalizations, when talking about a nation and it's populous, their is actual an entire field of scocaloigy dedicated to it called antropoligy. As some may recall Darwin himself was an antropoiligist, and he made a complete generalization of creation, that is still held to this day.

Generalization, is the stupid mans way of understanding, and they are based on the majority of population, but when looking at our nation, our beleifs, we seem to say that the majority is where the discission making should take place. Thus the generalization of the "discission making body", is nothing more the summary, or a plot line of a much wider picture. Still accurate to a point.