Blank Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper could not have been created without the hard work of numerous
authors, editors and publishers who researched, and made available, information about
the lives of the people discussed herein. In addition to books, magazines and personal
interviews with researchers, Internet resources proved to be extremely valuable. While it
was impossible to verify every piece of information, effort was made to corroborate the
details of each person’s life story, and to credit the original authors and sources by listing
them at the conclusion of each chapter.
I wish to express special appreciation to Elizabeth Kennedy for compiling and
publishing Path of a Warrior, which served as a constant guide throughout the creation of
this project.

INTRODUCTION

“Being a Warrior
has little to do with war
and much to do with causes.”

From Warrior, by Phil Messina, in Path of a Warrior

In beginning this test, I was given little guidance on the selection of ten persons to
occupy a place of honor on the wall in Modern Warrior. My requirements were only that
I must select a Medal of Honor winner, a civil rights or religious leader and a person who
experienced a personal struggle that had an impact on others. All persons selected had to
have lived during the twentieth century. Much of the time spent on this project was spent
trying to figure out a guiding principle or method by which to select these important
persons. In contemplating who deserved to be recognized on the walls of our school, I
began by looking to see who was already recognized. Prominently placed in our school
are, for example, pictures of martial artists, men and women from law enforcement, fire
fighters, and students who are dear to us. I did not want to be redundant in recognizing
people. Most notably, had Dave Catapano not already occupied a place of honor in our
school, he would be on the Wall of Warriors and included in this essay.
I also looked to see who was missing from the walls, but who nevertheless
represented the ideals that we adhere to as practitioners of Bo Fung Do. To answer that
question, I had to carefully analyze what those principles are. The quotes on the wall and
Phil Messina’s lessons over the years are, as far as I am concerned, the authority on what
it means to be a warrior. Consequently, I reflected on Phil’s teachings, and I thoroughly
reviewed the book Path of a Warrior. What I discovered is that the principles of
warriorhood, while broad, can be distilled into several basic themes. This paper reflects
my efforts to select persons from the twentieth century who, while they appear very
different on the surface, all embody manifestations of the warrior spirit. Triumphs of
Mind, Body and Spirit are all reflected in the struggles and achievements of these fine
people. By selecting a diverse representation of people, causes and cultures, I
endeavored to provide a monument in the school to which every student could relate on
some level. It would be, I hope, impossible to look at these people and hear their stories
and not find at least one that you can personally appreciate. It is my sincere belief that,
on reflection, we can appreciate all of them.
There are some conspicuous absences in my selections. I made a concerted effort
to avoid picking the “obvious” choices for one simple reason. I believe that to say, for
example, that Martin Luther King or Gandhi were brave people who served higher causes
is to say very little at all that has not been said before. While some of my selections have
made their way into the history books, I hope that many of them will be new to you, and
therefore more interesting and maybe more accessible. These are real people, not icons.
In each chapter, I have divided the essay into two parts. The first part,
“Background,” provides biographical information about the person. The second part,
“Selection,” explains the reasons I chose the particular person. I hope that you find my
choices worthy of recognition in our school.

I. WAR: ROY P. BENAVIDEZ*

“The true warrior receives no payment.
His pain is often his reward
And his scars are often his medals
For he has earned them.”

Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior

“The real heroes are the ones who gave their lives for their country. I don’t like to
be called a hero. I just did what I was trained to do.”

Roy Benavidez

A. Background
Roy P. Benavidez was born on August 5, 1935 in DeWitt County, Texas. A
sharecroppers’ son, orphaned at an early age, Benavidez worked during his youth in
sugar beet and cotton fields from West Texas to Colorado to earn a living. He joined the
United States Army in June of 1955, at the age of nineteen, where he earned his high
school diploma and found a calling as a professional soldier. Encouraged by his
experiences in airborne school, Benavidez sought out challenging military assignments,
including deployment to Vietnam with the Army Special Forces. While serving in South
Vietnam in 1964, he was critically injured by a land mine but, despite doctors’
predictions that he would never walk again, Benavidez made a full recovery and quickly
returned to military service.

In 1968, during his second tour, Benavidez was assigned to Detachment B-56, 5th
Special Forces Group. On May 2nd of that year, a twelve-member reconnaissance team,
which had been inserted into dense jungle to observe the activities of the North
Vietnamese Army, became engaged in a fierce firefight and made an urgent request for
evacuation by helicopter. Three rescue helicopters attempted to extract the team, but
were driven away by intense ground fire. The helicopters and their crews sustained
serious damage and returned to their base in Loc Ninh to regroup.
Benavidez was at the forward operating base monitoring the operation by radio
when the helicopters returned to unload wounded passengers and assess the damage.
When a second extraction attempt was planned, Benavidez volunteered to participate. He
boarded a returning rescue helicopter and proceeded to direct the pilot to hover over a
clearing in the vicinity of the imperiled team. Benavidez knew the team members were
all either wounded or dead, and would be unable to move very far to the pick-up zone.
* Medal of Honor Winner

Taking personal responsibility for the rescue, Benavidez jumped from the
hovering helicopter and ran approximately seventy-five meters under heavy fire to the
team’s position. During this run, Benavidez was assailed by small arms fire and
grenades. Within seconds after jumping from the helicopter, he was wounded in the leg,
face and head. Despite his wounds, Benavidez successfully made his way to the stricken
team and took command. He directed the team’s fire to provide cover for the helicopter,
and ran alongside the aircraft as it landed, in order to shield the crew. Benavidez dragged
and assisted the team members to the helicopter, helped them on board, and then returned
to their position to recover classified documents to prevent discovery by the enemy. In
the course of recovering the documents, Benavidez came under even more intense attack,
and suffered additional wounds to the stomach and back from rifle fire and grenade
fragments.
Before Benavidez could return to the rescue helicopter, the pilot was mortally
wounded by ground fire, causing the helicopter to crash into the jungle. Seeing the
chopper go down, Benavidez made his way to the crash site where he pulled survivors
from the overturned aircraft and arranged them in a defensive tactical formation. He then
moved around the perimeter distributing ammunition and water and encouraging the men
to fight. While rendering first aid to a wounded team member, Benavidez sustained yet
another injury to his thigh from small arms fire.
As the enemy strength increased, and the team grew more and more weary,
Benavidez realized the gravity of the situation. Contacting the air base by radio,
Benavidez coordinated one final rescue attempt. He provided coordinates for gunships to
direct suppressive fire while a helicopter darted in to make an attempt at extraction.
When the helicopter touched down in a nearby clearing, Benavidez made multiple trips,
carrying wounded team members to their last chance for survival.
At one point, while helping a wounded team member to the helicopter, Benavidez
was jumped by an enemy soldier who clubbed and bayoneted him ruthlessly in an attempt
to capture him. Despite sustaining increasingly debilitating injuries, Benavidez killed his
adversary in hand-to-hand combat, and then continued his rescue efforts. He killed two
more enemy soldiers who were attempting to flank the helicopter and made a final trip to
recover classified documents before finally boarding the helicopter himself. The ordeal
lasted six hours.
When he arrived back at the base at Loc Ninh, Benavidez was in grave condition,
unable to speak. Doctors, thinking he was dead, placed him in a body bag. As the zipper
was just about to close, Benavidez summoned his strength and spit in the doctor’s face,
signaling that his burial would be premature. Benavidez was transported to a hospital in
Saigon, where he underwent surgery and received treatment for his wounds. Benavidez
is credited with saving the lives of at least eight men that day, despite the harshest of
conditions and in the face of desperate odds. For his actions, he was awarded the
Distinguished Service Cross by General William Westmoreland.
After the war, Benavidez returned to Texas. In 1981, after Green Beret Brian
O’Connor, the man who had frantically radioed the initial call for help, came forward to
confirm Benavidez’s heroic conduct in Vietnam, Benavidez was awarded the Medal of
Honor by President Ronald Reagan. His battles, however, were not quite over.
6
Ironically, just before Memorial Day in 1983, the Social Security Administration planned
to cut off disability payments Benavidez had been receiving since his retirement from the
Army in 1976. Still suffering constant pain from shrapnel embedded in his body, as well
as a punctured lung, Benavidez reluctantly came forward to protest the Social Security
Administration’s plan to eliminate not only his benefits, but the benefits of a total of three
hundred and fifty thousand people over the following two years.
“I don’t like to use my Medal of Honor for political purposes or personal gain,”
he remarked, “but if they can do this to me, what will they do to all the others?”
Benavidez’s protests drew the attention of President Reagan, who expressed personal
concern. Additionally, Benavidez testified before the House Select Committee on Aging,
and successfully appealed the termination of benefits. He was an outspoken and
compelling representative of recipients who depended on Social Security assistance.
Benavidez died on November 29, 1998 in San Antonio, Texas from natural
causes. He was sixty-three years old. He was survived by his wife Hilaria, his son Noel,
his two daughters, Yvette and Denise, and three grandchildren.
B. Selection
I selected Roy Benavidez as the first warrior for this paper because, while being a
warrior is not necessarily about war, we must remember that it sometimes is, and that
those who serve answer an unfortunate but essential call to duty. Since Vietnam, the
soldier has become suspect in society’s eyes, often confused with the political goals that
direct his efforts. I believe Benavidez’s story helps restore fundamental appreciation and
respect for soldiers. Benavidez served his country with indisputable honor during a
particularly controversial period in our nation’s history. Recognizing the feats and
inherent integrity in the actions of men like Benavidez distinguishes the causes and the
motivations of soldiers from the government interests that steer them.
Whether or not a person believes that Vietnam was a just war, for example, who
can look at the actions of Roy Benavidez and doubt his compassion, duty, honor and
humanity? People are not surprisingly frightened and repulsed by acts of violence, but
the qualities that emerge in the context of violence are no less laudable because they are
ugly. To carry one wounded man to safety, for example, Benavidez had to kill another
with a knife. One can imagine few experiences more repugnant to the human psyche
than killing a fellow human being at close range with an edged weapon. But when we
look past the act, to the selfless motive of defending a companion, we see something
beautiful. We see a willingness to confront the most horrible and desperate
circumstances for the sake of other people.
While the circumstances may take many different forms, in war they inevitably
involve choices about violence. Benavidez volunteered for the rescue mission. Quite
simply, there was nothing in it for him but risk, terror and responsibility. Had Benavidez
not been willing to take on those challenges, good men would have died needlessly. For
his willingness and his remarkable effectiveness in taking on those challenges, and for
7
serving both his country and his comrades with equal conviction, I believe Roy
Benavidez deserves a place on the Wall of Warriors.
Sources
1. Medal of Honor, available at http://www.mishalov.com/Benavidez.html.
2. Richard Goldstein, Roy Benavidez Died at Age 63 on Sunday, 29 November 1998,
New York Times, Dec. 4, 1998.
8
II. THE HOLOCAUST: DIETRICH BONHOEFFER*
“It would be much easier to stay uninvolved in such atrocious matters, yet could you live
with yourself?”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
"The ultimate question for a responsible man to ask is not how he is to extricate himself
heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation shall continue to live."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, After Ten Years
A. Background
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born in Breslau, Germany on February 4, 1906. He
attended the University of Berlin from 1924 to 1927, where he wrote his dissertation, and
was awarded his doctorate with honors. In 1928, Bonhoeffer served as a vicar in the
German parish in Barcelona, Spain. Act and Being, his thesis, helped secure him a
teaching position at the University of Berlin, where he was accepted in July 1930. The
following year, Bonhoeffer did his postgraduate studies at Union Theological Seminary
in New York.
After completing his studies in New York, Bonhoeffer returned to Germany and
became involved in the fledgling “ecumenical movement,” a movement to establish
worldwide unity among churches. He was appointed Youth Secretary of the World
Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches. Following his
ordination at St. Matthias Church, Berlin, Bonhoeffer helped organize the Pastors'
Emergency League in September 1933, prior to assuming a pastorate of the German
Evangelical Church.
The emergence of Adolf Hitler in German politics, at the end of January 1933,
commenced the series of challenges to Bonhoeffer’s religious commitment that would
become the substance of his life’s work. Since its formation, the German Evangelical
Church (the main Protestant church in Germany) had been heavily influenced by
nationalism and obedience to state authority. Many Protestants welcomed and supported
the rise of Nazism. In particular, a group called the Deutsche Christen became the voice
of Nazi ideology within the Evangelical Church.
In the summer of 1933, the Deutsche Christen proposed the ratification of what
they called an "Aryan paragraph" to prevent "non-Aryans" from becoming ministers or
religious teachers. While the proposal of this resolution led Church leaders into a debate
about Nazi ideology, most avoided recognizing that the civil rights of Jews were under
attack. Many who opposed the Aryan paragraph otherwise supported the Nazi regime's
restrictions on Jews.
* Religious Leader
9
Bonhoeffer opposed the Deutsche Christen agenda and, in so doing, stood apart
from the majority of his colleagues in the Church. To counter the Deutsche Christen,
Bonhoeffer established a new church, which he called a "confessing" church, which
would remain free from Nazi influence. Most German bishops would dare not criticize
the Deutsche Christen, fearing that criticism would antagonize the Nazis and draw
unwanted attention. In an April 1933 essay, The Church and the Jewish Question,
Bonhoeffer publicly addressed some of the problems the Church faced under the Nazi
dictatorship. He called on the Church to respond to the Nazi state's actions against the
Jews. Bonhoeffer argued that the Church had an obligation to fight political injustice,
including Nazism. “The church,” he wrote, “must fight evil in three stages: The first [is]
to question state injustice and call the state to responsibility; the second [is] to help the
victims of injustice, whether they were church members or not.” Ultimately, “the church
might find itself called ‘not only to help the victims who have fallen under the wheel, but
to fall into the spokes of the wheel itself’ in order to halt the machinery of injustice.”
(Barnett, quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Church and the Jewish Question, in No Rusty
Swords: Letters, Lectures and Notes 1928-1936 226 (New York: Harper and Row,
1965)).
To further his efforts in critiquing the Nazi agenda, and to draw support from
outside Germany, Bonhoeffer met with American theologian Paul Lehmann and sent a
message to U.S. Jewish leader Rabbi Stephen Wise. Despite his efforts, the Deutsche
Christen had gained control of many Protestant churches throughout Germany by the fall
of 1933. Their resolution, to exclude “non-Aryans” from religious leadership, was
approved in September of 1933. Bonhoeffer quickly recognized the importance of
informing the international community about what was happening in Germany. His
efforts to draw attention and scrutiny intensified rapidly. For example, he attended the
ecumenical World Alliance meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria, where he spoke compellingly
about the treatment of minorities in Germany. Swayed by Bonhoeffer’s arguments, the
delegates passed a resolution condemning the Nazi actions against the Jews. Back in
Germany, however, his position was not so well received. Leaders of the Evangelical
Church in Berlin insisted that Bonhoeffer withdraw from ecumenical activities.
Bonhoeffer refused; his efforts only intensified. Frustrated by conditions in Germany,
Bonhoeffer decided to accept a position at a German-speaking congregation in London.
He left Germany reluctantly, despondent over the state of the Church and the Nazi
seizure of power.
In London, Bonhoeffer continued his efforts to mitigate the activities of the Nazis.
His parish became a haven for Christian and Jewish refugees. In late 1934, Bonhoeffer's
parish withdrew from the official German Evangelical Church, siding officially with the
oppositional Confessing Church. Bonhoeffer realized, however, that his presence in
Germany was sorely needed. In April 1935, Bonhoeffer returned, where he was troubled
to find that the Confessing Church was under increasing pressure from the Gestapo.
Most church leaders, intimidated by the Nazis, still refused to oppose the regime.
Though a small group leant open support to Jews and other minorities, the majority gave
way to the Nazi agenda and supported the government’s right to “regulate” Jewish affairs
through the Nuremberg Laws, which denied Jews of their civil rights.
10
To encourage up and coming leaders in the Church to resist the Nazis, Bonhoeffer
began teaching at Finkenwalde, a Confessing Church seminary in Germany. Most of his
students, however, were prevented from getting positions after graduation. In 1937, the
Gestapo initiated more aggressive measures against Bonhoeffer and his supporters. The
“Himmler Decree” declared the education of Confessing Church ministry candidates
illegal. In September of 1937, the Gestapo closed Finkenwalde. By November of that
year, twenty-seven of Bonhoeffer's students were arrested.
Bonhoeffer spent the next two years secretly traveling from village to village to
assist and monitor his students, who were working illegally in small parishes. The
Gestapo watched him as closely as possible, attempting to track his movements. Soon,
Bonhoeffer was banned from Berlin. The Nazis issued an order prohibiting him from
speaking in public. In November of 1938, when the Nazis burned synagogues throughout
Germany, Bonhoeffer immediately traveled to Berlin to investigate. Bonhoeffer
characterized the attack on the Jewish religion as a case of "sheer violence" that only
revealed Nazism's "godless face." (Barnett, citing W. D. Zimmermann, ed., I Knew
Dietrich Bonhoeffer 150 (New York: Harper and Row, 1966)).
Bonhoeffer wrote letters urging churches to press their governments to take in
more Jewish refugees. He succeeded in getting churches in New York, Geneva and
elsewhere to work together to assist Jewish refugees. By 1939, Bonhoeffer had focused
an international group of ecumenical churches on the developments in Germany. In
addition, Bonhoeffer developed ties to members of the German resistance, including a
lawyer named Hans von Dohnanyi, who was married to Bonhoeffer's sister. Dohnanyi
hated Nazism. He used his position in Military Intelligence, inside the regime, to gather
information that he hoped to use against the Nazis. As his concerns mounted, Dohnanyi
contacted Bonhoeffer about organizing resistance against the Nazis.
Bonhoeffer knew that war was imminent, and that he would never fight on
Hitler’s side. Bonhoeffer felt, at that time, that he would be best able to serve the
resistance by organizing a relief effort and safe haven in New York. Shortly after
arriving in New York, however, Bonhoeffer realized that his place was back in Germany,
in the center of the conflict. He wrote, “I have come to the conclusion that I made a
mistake in coming to America. . . . I shall have no right to take part in the restoration of
Christian life in Germany after the war unless I share the trials of this time with my
people.”(See Barnett, n. 15, quoting Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Eine
Biographie 736 (Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag)).
When Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in July 1939, he was committed to active
resistance against the Nazi regime. In October 1940, Bonhoeffer began work as an agent
for the Military Intelligence, supposedly using his religious contacts to help the Nazi
agenda. In fact, he used the position to develop a network of undercover agents
dedicated to resisting and overthrowing the Third Reich. Bonhoeffer’s plan was to gain
enough support so that he could convince the German military establishment to stage a
coup against Hitler. Bonhoeffer reached out to diplomats from the allied forces for
support in orchestrating the coup, but his pleas were consistently refused. While
Bonhoeffer and his co-conspirators were working frantically to overthrow Hitler from
inside the Reich, conditions in Germany were increasingly hostile towards Jews. On
11
September 5, 1941, the Nazis ordered that all Jews had to wear a yellow star. Shortly
thereafter, deportations from Berlin commenced.
Recognizing the imminent threat, Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi conceived a plan to
get Jews out of Germany by providing them with travel documents, identifying them as
foreign agents. Bonhoeffer used his international contacts to obtain visas and sponsors
for the group. The effort, termed "Operation Seven," eventually succeeded in getting
some Jews to safety in Switzerland. Unfortunately, the Gestapo was able to link the
rescue mission to Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi, whom they arrested and incarcerated in
April of 1943. Bonhoeffer was charged with conspiring to rescue Jews, and of abusing
his travel privileges and his intelligence position. It would be close to two years,
however, before the Nazis discovered the depth of his involvement in the resistance.
With the need to topple Hitler growing more and more urgent, members of the
resistance launched an attempt to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. The attempt proved
unsuccessful. Bonhoeffer was linked to the plot a few months later. In October 1944,
Bonhoeffer was transported to a Gestapo prison in Berlin. In February of 1945 he was
taken to Buchenwald, then to the Flossenbürg concentration camp. On April 9, 1945,
Bonhoeffer was hanged by the Nazis for his participation in efforts to rescue Jews and for
his involvement in the plot to remove Hitler from power. Within days, Dohnanyi and
Bonhoeffer’s brother, Klaus, were also executed. A witness to Bonhoeffer’s death
reported that, at the moment of his execution, Bonhoeffer was “brave” and “composed.”
(Barnett, at n. 20, quoting H. A. Jacobsen, Spiegelbild einer Verschwörung: Die
Opposition gegen Hitler und der Staatsstreich Vom 20 Juli 1944 in der SDBerichterstattung,
Vol. I. 508 (Stuttgart: Degerloch)).
During Bonhoeffer’s years of opposition to the Nazis, he published numerous
works exploring the most difficult theological and philosophical questions. The letters he
wrote during his two years in Nazi prisons were posthumously published by his student
and friend, Eberhard Bethge, as Letters and Papers from Prison. His correspondence
with his fiancee, Maria von Wedermeyer, has also been published as Love Letters from
Cell 92.
B. Selection
I selected Bonhoeffer because he, like many of the people in this paper, made
critical choices in his life that reveal that he valued the rights of others more than he
valued his own life. Bonhoeffer knew the degree of the challenges he faced in taking on
Hitler and the Nazi regime, and he also knew that he could leave the country and make a
better life for himself somewhere else. He could have even justified staying in the United
States or England, because he was offering help to refugees and he was drawing the
world’s attention to the conditions in Germany.
Bonhoeffer realized the hypocrisy in leaving those he had trained to deal with the
problem, while he, the most capable in the fight he had started, conveniently relocated to
less dangerous locales. Bonhoeffer had dedicated his life to the value of religious
teachings—ultimately, to the power of Faith over Fear. To flee the terror of the Gestapo
12
would have been the ultimate concession, especially since the Nazis were perverting the
German church.
I am particularly impressed by Bonhoeffer’s resourcefulness and pragmatism in
fighting his enemy. Posing as a government agent, sneaking refugees past checkpoints
and plotting the assassination of political leaders are not the typical activities of a
religious figure. Bonhoeffer’s conduct stands as a striking example of the principle that a
belief in God does not abdicate mankind from the responsibility of taking affirmative and
sometimes drastic steps to further His will.
I believe this combination of faith and self-reliance is peculiar to warriors, who
are obedient to a belief system but, at the same time, take initiative in affecting the world
around them. Even after his capture, Bonhoeffer struggled to find meaning in the events
he had become a part of. One wonders how a man in a concentration camp could
maintain a belief in God. Bonhoeffer’s calm and defiant demeanor at his moment of
execution, however, suggests that his faith never left him. I believe that Bonhoeffer was
able to remain faithful in the most desperate circumstances because he knew his duty in
the Holocaust, and he knew that he had met it. For his courage, his resourcefulness and
his faith, I believe Dietrich Bonhoeffer deserves a place on the Wall of Warriors.
Sources
1. Victoria Barnett, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, available at
http://www.ushmm.org/bonhoeffer/b1.htm.
2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, available at http://www.dbonhoeffer.org/who-was-db2.htm.
13
III. CIVIL RIGHTS: ROSA PARKS*
“[A] true, deep sense of peace comes with the knowledge that you are willing to make a
stand for your principles. This is the beginning of making your own destiny.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“When I declined to give up my seat, it was not that day, or bus, in particular. I just
wanted to be free like everybody else. I did not want to be continually humiliated over
something I had no control over: the color of my skin.”
Rosa Parks
A. Background
Rosa Parks was born Rosa Louise McCauley on February 4, 1913 in Tuskgegee,
Alabama. While the exact location of her birthplace is unknown, an early photograph
shows her first home as a modest plywood shanty. As a child, she was well mannered,
disciplined and quiet. The strongest influences on the young Rosa were her family and
her church. From an early age, Rosa took an immediate liking to the energy and
excitement of church services, which she attended regularly. Although she generally
remained reserved in services that were marked by their exuberant expressions of faith,
her commitment to the church was very strong. Throughout her life, Rosa Parks
remained a devoted member of the American Methodist Church.
Rosa had a true need for faith in a strong belief system that would allow her to
transcend her sometimes desperate surroundings. Rosa faced many challenges in her
youth. She was a small, sickly child, raised under very difficult socio-economic
conditions. Her family faced the struggles brought on by limited resources, a boll weevil
blight that crippled the predominantly agricultural community and, most of all, the
constant threat of violence from the Ku Klux Klan. In 1912, the year before Rosa was
born, there were sixty-three documented lynchings of African-Americans in the region in
which Rosa grew up. In the town of Pine Level, where Rosa spent much of her
childhood, the Klan was particularly active. Young Rosa, however, learned to defy terror
from a very early age. When the threat of Klan activity was high, her grandfather, who
had spent his childhood as a slave, would instruct the children to wear their clothes to
bed, to be better able to flee or fight if necessary, and would sit by the door with a
shotgun. On many nights, Rosa would sit beside her grandfather at the ready, prepared to
resist a home invasion.
While Rosa was a peaceful person, she would stand her ground, even as a child,
when threatened. Any act of wrongful aggression against Rosa was likely to meet with
solid resistance. Once, when a boy tried to push her off a sidewalk as she walked through
an all-white neighborhood, the young girl responded with a sharp shove that sent the boy
reeling. When the boy’s mother scolded her and threatened to have her thrown in jail,
* Civil Rights Leader
14
Rosa replied simply that she “didn’t want to be pushed, seeing as [she] wasn’t bothering
him at all.”
Despite the nightly Klan watches, and frequent encounters with racism, Rosa was
a happy and adventurous child, who enjoyed exploring the outdoors and the pleasures of
books. When Rosa turned eleven in 1924, her mother enrolled her in the Montgomery
Industrial School for Girls. Run by co-founders Alice White and Margaret Beard, the
school was surprisingly progressive and provided the first of the influential educational
experiences that would add intellectual prowess to Rosa’s demure yet defiant nature.
When the school was forced to close in 1928, Rosa remained in Montgomery, Alabama.
She spent most of her teenage years there, enduring the Great Depression with
characteristic stoicism.
In Montgomery, Rosa’s life still revolved around the Church, and it was there that
she met Raymond Parks in 1931. Raymond, who earned his living as a barber, was
heavily involved with the efforts of the NAACP. Rosa quickly became interested in the
activities of the organization and worked diligently on behalf of victims of prejudice.
Rosa and Raymond Parks were married in 1932, in the midst of national economic
catastrophe and the constant threat of violence. Meetings of the NAACP were conducted
in secret, under heavy guard, for fear that frequent death threats would be realized.
Among the injustices the NAACP confronted was the exclusion of African-Americans
from many social, political and educational opportunities. At that time, Blacks could not
serve on juries, were prohibited from enrolling in universities, and were offered only
menial employment. They were denied access to public parks and libraries and were
routinely mistreated socially.
Despite these obstacles, Parks earned her high school diploma in 1933 and,
shortly thereafter, became a nurse’s assistant at St. Margaret’s Hospital. She also sewed
clothes for customers in her spare time to supplement her income. In 1941, Parks got a
job working at Maxwell Field, a military air base that was, under the orders of Franklin
D. Roosevelt, fully racially integrated. It was at the military base that Parks became
acutely aware of the benefits of integration. Her daily transition back to a segregated
community was jarring and only solidified her resolve to work towards equal rights for
African-Americans. Among the many goals Parks worked for was the right of African-
Americans to vote. Although they had been given that right by the ratification of the
Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, African-Americans were precluded from voting in many
communities by means of intimidation and other tactics.
In 1941, Parks’ brother Sylvester was drafted into the United States Army,
ironically defending a democracy in which he was not allowed to fully participate. It was
during the 1940s that Parks officially joined the NAACP, despite the fact that her
husband had resigned from the organization. Parks believed that the NAACP’s main
objective, to address obstacles that prevented African-Americans from voting, was a
crucial step towards achieving equality.
Rosa Parks’ involvement with the NAACP was in a primarily low profile, behind
the scenes capacity. While more flamboyant figures attended dinners and speeches,
Parks fulfilled duties as a record-keeper and organizer, documenting every report of
racial discrimination that she came across. Her paying job during this period was her
15
work as a seamstress at Crittendon’s Tailor Shop. Although she gave her job the
attention it required, she became increasingly active in the NAACP and its collective
causes. In 1949, she became an advisor to the NAACP Youth Group, just one example
of her life-long commitment and dedication to children. After a two-year absence, which
Parks took to care for her ailing mother, she returned to the NAACP in 1952 as a branch
secretary.
Through one of her contacts at the NAACP, Parks learned of and was given the
opportunity to attend a training workshop at the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle,
Tennessee to address implementing court decisions that were favorable to desegregation.
Parks embraced the training passionately. At the age of forty-two, she was still
somewhat shy, but her enthusiasm for the material was evident in her active participation.
Parks left the training with the feeling of empowerment that comes from realizing how to
convert ideas into action. While she still had to endure the oppressive atmosphere of
Montgomery, she was reinforced by her experiences at Highlander. She returned to work
at the tailor shop in the basement of the Montgomery Fair Store with grim determination.
Shortly after completing her training in Tennessee, Parks met Martin Luther King
for the first time at a local church. King made a significant impression on Parks, and she
quickly realized the potential power of his passion and charisma. Parks developed a
close relationship with King that lasted until his death. Interestingly, while Parks
marveled at and appreciated King’s commitment to non-violent resistance, she never
totally adopted it herself, believing instead that force was sometimes justified in the
defense of a good cause. Biographer Douglas Brinkley distinguishes Parks from some of
the figures with whom she is typically identified. Brinkley writes, “Unlike Gandhi and
King, Parks refused to rule out the righteous use of force. She believed that some wars
were indeed just, that an abused person had the right to hit back, and that the ancient
Hindu ideal [of] . . . non-violence toward all living things, did not apply to the starving or
oppressed.” (Brinkley, p. 191).
On December 1, 1955, Parks embarked on the bus trip that has since become so
famous. Shortly after 5:00 p.m., she left work and walked a block to the bus stop. When
the bus arrived, she boarded, dropped her fare in the box, and took her seat in the racially
neutral middle section of the bus. Parks was not expecting trouble, but she did become a
little worried when she noticed that the driver was James Baker, a man who had bullied
her off a bus twelve years earlier. Parks and this particular driver had a history of
animosity.
As the bus became more crowded, custom and local ordinances called for Parks to
relinquish her seat to a white passenger. In fact, African-Americans were not even
allowed to sit parallel with a white person, because that would imply equality. On this
day in particular, Parks was sitting across from two African-American women when a
single white passenger was left standing, with nowhere to sit in the whites only section in
the front of the bus. Baker, the driver, insisted that Parks and the two women abandon
their seats and move to the back so the white passenger could occupy the row by himself.
While the two women across from her reluctantly complied, Parks gathered her
resolve. When Baker loomed over her and asked bluntly, “Are you going to move?”
Parks looked at him calmly and replied simply, “No.” Surprised, Baker admonished her,
16
“Well, I’m going to have you arrested.” Parks replied, “You may do that.” After some
consultation with his supervisor, Baker called the police. Though officers urged Parks to
give up her seat to avoid arrest, she refused, and was arrested for violating the city’s
segregation ordinance. Though she spent only a few hours in the city jail, her act sent a
ripple through the community that soon grew into a sizable wave.
Parks’ trial for violating the segregation laws lasted all of five minutes, and
resulted in a criminal conviction and a ten-dollar fine. It cost the city much more. The
African-American community responded to the arrest by participating in a massive
boycott of the city bus system, a boycott organized by civil rights activist Jo Ann
Robinson. Robinson created and distributed leaflets throughout the community, calling
on citizens of Montgomery to show their opposition to segregation by forbearing to use
the city transportation. With the encouragement of civil rights leaders, including King,
the boycott was a tremendous success that shook the foundation of city government and
attracted considerable attention from civil rights supporters around the country, including
authorities in the federal government who became increasingly aggressive in upholding
federal anti-discrimination laws in the Southern states.
In August of 1957, Parks moved to Detroit to be closer to her family. Later that
same year, she traveled to Virginia to work at the Hampton Normal and Agricultural
Institute. While at the Institute, Parks became close with a Siuox student and began
studying Crazy Horse. She spent about a year in Virginia, and returned to Detroit in the
Christmas of 1958 to help take care of her family. She remained in Detroit, working as a
seamstress, and kept active in civil rights and politics, lending her support to worthy
campaigns and leaving home to attend marches when her presence was needed. In
addition to fighting racism and segregation, Parks was also a tough-minded feminist.
More recently, Parks founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-
Development in 1987. Headquartered in Detroit, the Institute was set up to provide
training and educational opportunities for young people who, like Parks, are searching for
meaning in their struggles. The institute includes Parks’ Pathways to Freedom program,
in which Parks personally escorts groups of children on educational trips. Many of these
children never left the urban ghetto before Parks gave them the chance.
As Parks has aged, she has only became more defiant. She is a woman who has
faced oppression and intimidation on many levels and who has not succumbed. On
August 30, 1994, Parks was confronted by a home intruder in her apartment in Detroit.
When the man demanded money, Parks took pity on his derelict appearance and offered
him a few dollars. When the man demanded all of her money, the eighty-one year-old
Parks refused and physically resisted when the man attacked her. The robber beat her
severely before getting her to relinquish her purse. When asked about the incident, Parks
was careful to point out that the criminal who attacked her was in no way representative
of the people who live in the ghetto. Parks is ever wary of society’s tendency to make
quick generalizations.
While Parks consistently maintained an interest and involvement in Christianity,
her philosophy and life work lead her to an increasing interest in Buddhism. In 1994, she
visited Japan where she met with Dr. Daisaku Ikeda to discuss strategies for building a
global peace movement. The late 90s, however, proved difficult for Parks, as her age and
17
failing health made travel more difficult. She found some aid in holistic medicine, and an
unflickering will to carry on her work. Her achievements, of course, have not gone
unnoticed. The Smithsonian Institute, for example, has commissioned a bust of her
likeness. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented her with a medal for lifetime
achievement, and she has been honored by numerous institutions.
Though Parks is most famous for her single act of defiance on the city bus, her
role in the civil rights movement was much larger and much longer-lived. In the years
before and after, she worked quietly and tirelessly for principles of freedom and equality.
She was often in the background, fulfilling crucial support functions for more highprofile
activists. Her activities during the sixties and seventies are credited with inspiring
some of the most prominent figures in the civil rights movement. Nelson Mandela, for
example, said of Parks, “She is who inspired us . . . to be fearless when facing our
oppressors.”
B. Selection
Like most people, I had heard the story of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat
on the bus. What I did not realize, until I read her biography, was that that moment was
just one of many acts of defiance. From her childhood vigilance and readiness to defend
her home from the Klan, to her tireless efforts in furtherance of civil rights, to her
physical confrontation with a mugger in her old age, Parks asserted her warrior spirit in
many capacities. Parks stands as an example, I think, of a person whose life is dedicated
to a cause, and how the hard work in furtherance of that cause creates an inner strength
that pervades her character. Warriors are not born in a vacuum. Parks had strong role
models, good training and an environment that demanded either resistance or submission.
In choosing to resist, she embarked on a life of struggle, but one that was punctuated with
political, physical and spiritual triumphs.
One of the most remarkable things about Parks is that she is inevitably described
by her friends and colleagues as reserved and demure, yet she embodies a strength and
defiance that readily emerge when she is challenged. Her various acts of defiance have
been so potent that they have transcended her quiet self and have sent a ripple throughout
the international human rights community. Parks has also remained open-minded and
engaged with others as she has grown older. By founding a community center, and
staying personally involved, she has established a link between generations that
participate in an ongoing struggle. And though she has always been a devout Christian,
she has explored and embraced other religions and philosophies, from Buddhism to the
Sioux tribal values.
I selected Rosa Parks because she has lead a life of struggle, defiance, loss and
triumph, yet she has maintained the compassion and thoughtfulness that can sometimes
be squashed by suffering. For her achievements as a champion of civil rights and for
serving as an exemplar of the warrior ethic, I believe Rosa Parks deserves a place on the
Wall of Warriors.
18
Sources
1. Douglas Brinkley, Rosa Parks (2000).
2. Rita Dove, Rosa Parks, in People of the Twentieth Century: One Hundred Men and
Women Who Shaped the Last One Hundred Years (1999).
19
IV. MEDICINE: MATTHEW LUKWIYA
“A warrior can lose
But will never be defeated.
A warrior can be beaten
But can never be conquered.
A warrior will die
But will never perish.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“It is our vocation to save life. It involves risk, but when we serve with love, that is when
the risk does not matter so much. When we believe our mission is to save lives, we have
got to do our work.”
Dr. Matthew Lukwiya
A. Background
Matthew Lukwiya was born in Uganda in 1958. He began his career in medicine
as one of the brightest and most promising medical students ever to emerge from North
Africa. Earning a degree from the prestigious Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in
England, Lukwiya could have chosen to work in any one of the world’s most affluent
communities. He had done extremely well in medical school, attaining the highest marks
of any student in tropical pediatrics. While most of his peers headed off to high-paying
jobs, Lukwiya returned to Africa where he devoted himself to combating some of the
most horrifying and dangerous diseases the world has known, in a region swept with
civic instability and violence.
For his place of practice, Lukwiya selected St. Mary’s Hospital in Lacor, outside
the town of Gulu in northern Uganda. The area, one of the poorest in Africa, was
plagued not only by rampant illness, but also frequent skirmishes instigated by rebel
groups. During Lukwiya’s fifteen years in Lacor, the area was ravaged by cholera,
measles, malaria, meningitis, AIDS and, perhaps most frightening of all, ebola. When
Lukwiya was not busy dealing with these dreaded diseases, he was occupied with the
roaming groups of armed bandits that drifted in and out of the crossroads town. When
one such band invaded the hospital looking for nurses to take as hostages, Lukwiya
persuaded them to take him instead. He was held for a week before convincing his
captors to release him. In another close call, Lukwiya was home with his wife and five
children one night when a bandit tossed a hand grenade onto their windowsill. Luckily,
the grenade failed to explode.
20
Instead of being driven away, Lukwiya remained committed to his practice.
Under Lukwiya’s guidance as superintendent, the hospital tripled its capacity to nearly
eighteen thousand patients a year and became the leading hospital in the region. In early
October of 2000, however, Lukwiya and his staff were subjected to a terrible challenge.
Hospital staff became alerted to a problem when three student nurses suddenly became
violently ill and died. Lukwiya, called back from a trip, carefully scrutinized the medical
records of the three patients. Lukwiya took blood samples, which he sent to a lab in
South Africa for analysis, but, since seventeen additional people were now suffering from
similar symptoms, he worked quickly to independently arrive at a diagnosis. Lukwiya
determined that the women had died from hemorrhagic fever, caused by the rare and
highly infectious ebola virus. The ebola virus can spread quickly, from even fleeting
contact with body fluids and, once contracted, is often fatal. The disease attacks the
body’s internal organs, causing massive hemorrhaging.
In response to the looming threat of an outbreak, Lukwiya implemented a careful
treatment protocol, designed to isolate the highly contagious victims and protect the staff
as effectively as possible. In the outbreak that followed, two doctors and fifteen nurses,
all volunteers, worked around the clock to treat hundreds of victims. The medical
personnel worked under the grave threat that any contact with the body fluids of the
patients, who vomited and bled profusely, could result in a fatal infection. In the face of
this danger, Lukwiya was a steady and calming influence on the terrified patients and
anxious staff. He personally welcomed patients to the isolation ward and offered
compassion in addition to his medical skill.
Lukwiya’s defiance, however, ultimately could not protect him from the merciless
disease. On November 20, 2000, at 5:00 a.m., a patient, who happened himself to be a
nurse, became overwhelmed with panic. Pulling life support tubes from his body, the
patient lurched from his bed, half-crazed, blood pouring from his eyes, nose and mouth.
The staff called Lukwiya, who quickly responded. Rushing from his home, located
inside the hospital compound, Lukwiya hastily donned boots, gloves and a protective
gown, but, in his eagerness to calm the out-of-control patient, the doctor neglected to put
on a face shield—perhaps to be better able to speak to the man. Lukwiya was successful
in calming the patient. To help him breath, Lukwiya wrapped his arms around the man,
sticky with blood, to pull him into a sitting position. He then changed the man’s soiled
clothes and bed sheets and made him as comfortable as possible. The patient died while
Lukwiya was mopping the floor with bleach.
Lukwiya continued to work long hours to help treat other patients, but within days
he was symptomatic himself. When test results from the Center for Disease Control
confirmed that Lukwiya had contracted the disease, he remarked, “If I die, let me be the
last.” Although his colleagues worked tirelessly to save him, little can be done for the
ebola victim. Lukwiya’s condition worsened. He called his wife to tell her not to come,
for fear she might be infected. Despite his admonitions, Lukwiya’s wife Margaret did go
to his bedside, dressed from head to toe in a protective suit. As she looked down at him
and began to cry, Lukwiya calmly warned her, “If you cry, you’ll start rubbing your face,
which won’t be safe. Cool down and stand firm.” On December 5, 2000, at 1:20 a.m.,
Lukwiya died from massive hemorrhaging in his lungs. He was survived by his wife and
five children. Referring to her husband, Margaret Lukwiya stated, “I don’t think he
21
would regret this. He knew the risk. He saw what was needed for his patients and he did
it. That was him.”
Although the ebola outbreak that killed Lukwiya struck more than four hundred
people, causing one hundred and seventy-three deaths including seventeen medical
personnel, the measures that Lukwiya implemented are credited with saving many lives.
While terrible, the effects of the outbreak could have been much worse. In the previous
outbreak of ebola, which occurred in the Congo in 1995, four out of five people who had
contracted the disease died.
B. Selection
I learned about Dr. Matthew Lukwiya while skimming the newspaper on a
crowded subway one morning. In a brief paragraph, the newspaper reported simply that
the world’s leading ebola doctor had succumbed to the disease. While the details were
sparse, the meaning was clear. We had lost a brave person to a dreaded disease, and there
was very likely more to the story. I soon forgot the name, but I never forgot the event.
When it came time to work on this project, I reviewed available news data sources and
quickly found the rest of the story. After learning the details of Lukwiya’s life and death,
I am amazed that so few people know about him.
Other doctors, of course, have chosen to give up lives of luxury to help people in
impoverished areas. And other doctors have tackled challenging medical illnesses. But
how many have been willing to situate themselves in areas overrun with violence, deplete
of resources and plagued by what most people would consider the most terrifying
diseases known to the world? Despite the conditions under which he worked, Lukwiya
maintained warmth, compassion and a resilient sense of humor, which uplifted his wife,
children, co-workers and patients. His personality and resourcefulness were such that he
could persuade bandits to spare others and ultimately himself from harm. Some people
exude a benevolent spirit that seems to affect those around them in remarkable ways.
Lukwiya appears to have been such a person.
In his medical endeavors, Lukwiya focused his efforts on AIDS and ebola, both of
which are incurable and both of which are contagious. To its victims, AIDS presents the
grim inevitability of progressive deterioration and despair. Ebola presents a swift yet
horrific destruction of the body from the inside out. The fear that follows both diseases is
enough to send waves of panic through communities where they surface. In treating
incurable diseases, Lukwiya fought a war against fear as much as he fought the diseases
themselves, and though he ultimately succumbed to disease, he never succumbed to fear.
To be in Uganda, in the middle of an ebola outbreak, and to immerse oneself in the
middle of it in hopes of mitigating the inevitable horrific carnage is almost inconceivable.
As Lukwiya’s staff fell around him, he literally wrapped his arms around them to bolster
them. He fought the disease in every way he knew, and he supported the victims as best
he could, but he fundamentally knew that the battle was one that might produce tactics
for future fights (which it did) but which was doomed to fail in the short term.
22
To carry on research and experimental treatments under those conditions shows a
commitment to a long-term war that characterized Lukwiya’s duty to a cause more
important to him than his own life. Even in the face of his death, Lukwiya evaluated the
risk he posed to others and continued to make recommendations about minimizing the
spread of the disease. For his remarkable commitment to the cause of improving the lives
of others in the face of the most daunting odds, and for fusing medical attention with
compassion, I believe Dr. Matthew Lukwiya deserves place on the Wall of Warriors.
Sources
1. James Astill, The Death of Dr. Matthew, Guardian, Jan. 2, 2001, available at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,416866,00.thml.
2. American Medical Association, Profile of a Role Model, Feb. 2001, available at
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3967.html.
3. The Doctor Who Paid the Ultimate Price, Guardian, reprinted in Canberra Times 6,
Jan. 6, 2001 (2001 WL 2740442).
4. Blaine Harden, Ebola Casts Pall of Fear and Death Over Uganda, New York Times,
reprinted in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 4, 2001 at A3.
5. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company, A Vocation to Save Life, The
Christian Century 5 Mar. 14, 2001 (2001 WL 8962596).
23
V. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI
“The wisest decisions are often the ones
We suffer the most for.
Self-contentment comes only to those
Who are willing to suffer.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“It is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to
be a united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of
enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill will, ignorance and fear.”
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
A. Background
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (pronounced daw ong sahn soo chee) was born on June
19, 1945 in Rangoon, Burma (later renamed Myanmar). Aung’s childhood exposed her
to broad and stimulating cultural and educational experiences. Aung’s father was
General Aung San, a national leader who had helped Burma gain its independence from
Britain. Her father was assassinated in 1947 by a political rival. Her mother, Daw Khin
Kyi, served as ambassador to India and Nepal. In 1960, when her mother traveled to
Delhi to carry out her diplomatic assignments, Aung went with her.
Aung attended school in India, and later in England, where she studied
philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford. During her studies at Oxford, from 1964
to 1967, she met Michael Aris, the man who would become her husband. After
completing her education, Aung worked briefly as a research assistant at the University
of London, and then moved to New York to begin a career in public service. From 1969
to 1971, Aung served as Assistant Secretary to the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions at the United Nations in New York. In 1972,
she served as a Research Officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She married Aris
that same year, and had two sons with him— Alexander in 1973 and Kim in 1977.
During 1985 and 1986, Aung was a visiting scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian
Studies at Kyoto University. In 1987, she continued on her path of academic and
professional achievement by becoming a Fellow at the Indian Institute of Advanced
Studies in Simia.
In March of 1988, during a trip home to Burma to visit her terminally ill mother,
student protests broke out in Rangoon. In July, in response to political pressure, General
Ne Win stepped down as Chairman of the Burma Socialist Programme Party (“BSPP”).
His departure instigated a pro-democracy movement, which lead to a mass uprising
known as “8-8-88” for its date of occurrence. Millions of people across Burma joined in
24
protest against the BSPP government. The government responded to the demonstration
with brutal violence, killing and incarcerating hundreds of those who dared to voice
criticism. Aung was horrified, but not deterred. Having studied and embraced the
teachings of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, Aung rose to the occasion by
emerging as a clear voice of freedom and opposition to the government’s violent and
oppressive tactics.
On August 26, 1988, Aung addressed a vast crowd of anxious and curious
citizens. As she condemned the actions of the government, and called for the
establishment of a People’s Consultive Committee to resolve the crisis, the crowd's
enthusiasm for her message grew. She called on the Burmese people to work together
with ethnic minorities in a unified effort for peace and democracy. Compelled by her
personal sense of morality and a sense of family tradition in service to the cause of a free
Burma, Aung defied the obvious danger of assuming her role. By the end of her speech,
Aung’s first political address, the crowd was roaring with approval and spirited support.
For the next eleven months, Aung defied the government’s oppressive and frightening
threats and continued to speak publicly in favor of democracy. Her methods were
determined and robust, but strictly non-violent. She would offer the regime no excuse to
justify its hostile treatment of the people of Burma.
On September 18, the generals set up the State Law and Order Restoration
Council (“SLORC”), a deceptive maneuver to pacify protesters by making empty
promises that free elections would follow. In fact, the military regime was making
calculated efforts to destroy the resistance. For example, one of the first mandates of the
Council was to prohibit gatherings of more than four persons. Aung ignored the
restriction. Establishing the National League of Democracy Party, she initiated a
relentless campaign against the regime. Writing home to her husband and sons, who had
remained in England, Aung expressed exhaustion but determination. Her courage never
wavered. On one trip, walking into a village where she intended to make a speech, Aung
was confronted by a line of armed soldiers, rifles raised. Ignoring their warning to stop,
she walked directly into and through the line. Unnerved by her defiance, the soldiers did
not shoot.
Aung’s efforts unified the government opposition and embraced an emphasis on
human rights as the goal of democracy. Aung also used her contact with the United
Nations to call international attention to the Burmese government’s atrocious treatment of
protesters. The government, however, did not easily accept her criticism. Reluctant,
perhaps, to make a martyr of Aung by assassinating her, the government instead launched
a propaganda campaign, accusing her of being a Communist and, in the alternative, a
puppet of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. When Aung responded by
placing the responsibility for the country’s horrors squarely with the military tyranny
under General Ne Win, government action was swift and decisive.
The SLORC sentenced her to house arrest, isolating her from her fellow
protesters. While Aung was initially permitted family visits, her isolation was quickly
intensified, to the point where she could not even receive mail. The government,
however, gave her an easy out. She was free to leave her residence if she would also
leave the country, exiled and precluded from her commitment to a democratic Burma.
Aung refused to leave, though her effectiveness was curtailed somewhat by her isolation.
25
In 1990, in a show of support for Aung, elections were held, with more than eighty
percent of the seats in the national assembly going to members of Aung’s NLD party.
The government, however, refused to recognize the results and imprisoned the elected
NLD representatives. The military maintained power, but with no claim whatsoever of
democratic legitimacy.
Aung’s courage has drawn the attention of the world. The UN and democratic
nations around the globe, including the United States, have supported Aung’s efforts by
bringing political and economic pressure to bear on Burma. In 1990, she was awarded
the Rafto Human Rights prize. In 1991, she received the Sakharov prize for freedom of
thought, and later the Nobel Peace Prize. Though Aung could not be present for the
ceremonies, her voice was heard through her husband and her many supporters. In
presenting the award, Nobel Committee Chairman Francis Sejersted remarked, “In the
good fight for peace and reconciliation, we are dependent on persons who set examples,
persons who can symbolize what we are seeking and mobilize the best in us. Aung San
Suu Kyi is just such a person.” Aung’s son Alexander, then eighteen years old, delivered
her acceptance speech on his mother’s behalf.
Despite the free world’s support and encouragement, Aung remained under house
arrest in Burma. On August 10, 1991, the military regime retroactively amended the law
to allow Aung to be officially detained without charge or trial. In 1993, seeking to assert
additional pressure on the Burmese government, seven Nobel Laureates attempted to visit
her in Burma, but were denied entry. In 1994, the Burmese government again amended
the law to officially permit Aung’s detention to continue at the discretion of government
officials. During 1994, in part as the result of heavy political pressure from the United
States and other countries, regime leaders met with Aung. On July 10, 1995 restrictions
were lessened somewhat. In October of that year, the NLD appointed her as Secretary
General despite the SLORC’s prohibition of changes in party leadership. In an attempt to
silence her, the government kidnapped and detained three of her cousins, who also served
as her top aides in the NLD. One was tortured so badly he had to be hospitalized. Aung
remained as defiant as ever. She quickly withdrew the NLD from its token participation
in the National Convention.
Aung remained active through 1996, urging businesses considering investing in
Burma to postpone their decision, denying economic influx until human rights conditions
improved. Senior SLORC officials, disturbed by Aung’s continuing activism,
admonished that armed forces would annihilate anyone who posed a threat to the
regime’s view of the “national interests.” SLORC also reportedly committed acts of
sabotage, including disabling her train in an effort to curtail her traveling campaign.
Government sponsored media called Aung a “poisonous snake” and warned that military
action was imminent against her “destructionist group” of “traitors.” By 1998, the
government was growing increasingly frustrated with Aung’s activities. She was
repeatedly forcibly deterred from traveling. At times, she was detained for days, or
driven against her will back to her residence, where she was instructed to stay. While out
of her home, she was prohibited from buying the food and supplies she required for her
journeys throughout the countryside. In 1999, Aung learned the tragic news that her
husband, still in England, was terminally ill with cancer. Seeking to capitalize on this
personal tragedy, the government denied him a visa when he sought to visit her. Aung,
26
knowing that if she left she could not return, remained in Burma. Her husband died on
March 27, 1999. Aung had not seen him in four years.
On September 3, 2000, soldiers raided Aung’s headquarters. They seized her
documents and arrested several members of the NLD. Security forces surrounded her
residence. Aung was barred from boarding trains or other means of transportation. In
December, President Bill Clinton awarded Aung the Presidential Medal of Freedom in
absentia. During 2001, the government gradually began easing the oppressive measures
against Aung. On the advice of a Washington, D.C. public relations agency, the
government changed the name of SLORC to the State Peace and Development Council
(“SPDC”). Officials from the United States and the European Union urged reconciliation
between the government and Aung’s opposition party. In August of 2001, the
government released from prison several members of the NLD, although they remained
under house arrest in Rangoon, as did Aung.
In the beginning of 2002, Aung reportedly met secretly with senior government
leaders, giving a glimmer of hope that her efforts may finally be leading to good faith
negotiation with the government. During the creation of this project, on Monday, May 6,
2002, Aung was released from house arrest. Thousands of supporters shouted, "Long
live Aung San Suu Kyi" when she emerged. In connection with Aung’s release, the
government issued a statement asserting, "We shall recommit ourselves to allowing all of
our citizens to participate freely in the life of our political process, while giving priority
to national unity, peace and stability of the country as well as the region." Myanmar's
ambassador to Washington reportedly said, "Suu Kyi is at liberty to carry out all activities
relating to her party.”
B. Selection
Aung grew up with a promising future and an abundance of opportunities to
pursue it. Though she suffered the loss of her father to assassination, she consistently
expressed an enthusiasm for life and the possibilities it had to offer. Aung had the
benefits of a supportive and resourceful mother, avenues to expansive cultural
experiences and the best educational and professional opportunities in the world. Her
travels through three continents and her exposure to diverse political, philosophical and
spiritual communities provided ample material from which to learn and grow. Aung was
additionally blessed with a loving husband and children.
Initially, it was Aung’s compassion for her ill mother that brought her home to
Burma. Perhaps it was just a coincidental twist of fate that the country would erupt while
she was there. But once immersed in the struggles of her homeland, and carrying the
benefits and the burdens of her education and experience, Aung chose to remain. It is
Aung’s choice, made consistently and repeatedly, to be where she was needed most that
distinguishes here efforts on behalf of the people of Burma. The government that Aung
opposed, by putting the decision to leave and never to return in her hands, created an
ongoing challenge that would confront Aung every day of her life, and would become
increasingly vexing. While many intellectuals have been content to criticize from afar,
27
Aung willingly and personally entered the fray, at considerable risk to herself and to the
exclusion of her husband and children.
There can be no doubt that Aung was tormented by her decision to leave her
family, and tempted every day of her house arrest to return to them and assert her efforts
through distant but viable avenues of international political activism, as her Nobel
Laureate colleagues did. She was imprisoned, yet given the keys to the door. Only her
own resolve and commitment to a strategy of personal leadership and involvement kept
her from succumbing to the temptation of a return to normal life in the free world.
To bear incarceration at the hands of another takes courage, but to bear the
consequences of your own sacrifices, at the expense of your family, for a cause that you
believe transcends those concerns shows the mettle of a warrior. Additionally, Aung was
not content to play the role of martyr. She actively and aggressively stirred others to defy
the government, though it posed the imminent risk of death to all involved. When her
husband became terminally ill, and the government would not let him enter the country or
communicate, they still gave Aung the option to leave. Her decision to remain in Burma
reveals the depth of Aung’s commitment to her cause and her belief that it transcended
her personal and immediate needs and wishes.
Aung adopted a long term and grueling strategy of internal political reform.
Faithful (and ultimately correct) in her belief that a long-term campaign was superior to
an impulsive rebellion, Aung worked tirelessly to change the dynamics of political and
philosophical activism inside Burma. Remarkably, she appears to have finally succeeded
within weeks of the creation of this project, though only time will tell. Aung stands for
the principles of patience, faith and reasoned decision-making in the face of
overwhelming emotional challenges. For her willing commitment to a lifetime of
sacrifice and for placing herself where she was needed most, though it cost her dearly, I
believe Daw Aung San Suu Kyi deserves a place on the Wall of Warriors.
Sources
1. Susannah Abbey, Freedom Hero: Aung San Suu Kyi, available at
http://www.myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=suukyi.
2. Irwin Abrams, Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, in The Nobel Prize Annual 1991 77, 77-
85 (1992).
3. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s Pages, available at http://www.dassk.com/biography.asp.
4. Alan Clemente, Aung San Suu Kyi: Burma’s Gandhi, reprinted from The Voice of
Hope.
5. Seth Mydans, Burmese Democracy Advocate is Released from House Arrest, New
York Times, May 6, 2002.
28
VI. THE FALL OF APARTHEID: STEPHEN BIKO
“The warrior values his life so highly
That he is willing to give it up.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“[T]hey will have to kill me, for I will not stop being a man, I will not shut up, I will not
allow injustice to continue, I will not watch the . . . killing of innocents, I will not be . . .
silenced . . . in my homeland. Never. For if I cannot find it in life to move the mountain
of apartheid, then the horror of [my] death surely will."
Stephen Biko
A. Background
Stephen Biko was born in King William's Town, South Africa on December 18,
1946. When Biko was four years old, his father Mzimkhayi Biko, was killed by a white
policeman who fired into a meeting at a Catholic church. His father’s body was dumped
in a pile outside of town. Biko and his older brother sorted through the bodies to find his
father. The experience haunted Biko throughout his life.
Biko began his education at Browlee Primary School, and then graduated to
Charles Morgan. Later, he attended the Lovedale Institute, but the school was closed
three months after his arrival because of student uprisings. Biko then transferred to
Marianhill, a Catholic school, in Natal. In 1966, he enrolled as a medical school student
at the University of Natal. Biko was a talented and promising student. His efforts against
apartheid, however, matched or exceeded his commitment to the study of medicine.
During medical school, Biko founded the South African Students Organization (“SASO”)
and the Black Community Program (“BCP”) to address the concerns of black students on
campus. He was also a member and active participant of several other organizations,
including the Black Workers' Project (“BWP”). The BWP addressed problems of black
workers whose unions were not recognized by law. In 1972, Biko was expelled from
medical school for his vocal criticism of apartheid.
In March 1973, drawing increasing scrutiny and pressure from the apartheid
regime, Biko was banned from public speaking and free travel. He was restricted to King
William’s Town. Although he set up a BCP office where he worked as a branch
executive, he was soon banned from working or associating with the BCP in any
capacity. Biko’s efforts, however, only expanded. In 1975, Biko helped establish the
Zimele Trust Fund, to assist political prisoners and their families. Police quickly targeted
Biko and his fellow activists. Apartheid opposition leaders were surveilled, their travel
liberties were restricted and they were forbidden from giving speeches or gathering. The
police frequently used violent tactics to discourage involvement or support for what came
to be known as “Black Consciousness.” Despite the government-imposed restrictions,
29
Biko was elected Honorary President of the BCP in January 1977. Though Biko was
personally surveilled and harassed by the police over the course of nine years, he
managed to communicate with supporters both inside and outside of South Africa,
including Donald Woods, a publisher and writer for the South African Daily Dispatch.
Woods helped give Biko a voice in the media, and was himself targeted by the
government for his efforts.
Biko was detained in custody several times, beginning with his first arrest in
1972. He spent one hundred and thirty-seven days in custody in 1975, and one hundredand-
one days in custody in 1976. He was arrested in March and July of 1977, but quickly
released without being charged with any crimes. On the night of August 18, 1977, police
stopped Biko at a roadblock in Grahamstown. They arrested him yet again, on the charge
that he had broken his “banning orders.” Eastern Cape security police detained Biko
under South Africa’s Terrorism Act of 1967 for engaging in anti-government activities.
He was initially held in Port Elizabeth, but was then transferred to police headquarters for
interrogation.
On September 7, 1977, during an interrogation, Biko was struck repeatedly on the
head and body. Doctors who examined him, naked and manacled to a metal grate,
initially disregarded signs of a neurological injury, though Biko appeared disoriented and
mentally impaired. By September 11, Biko had slipped into a coma. When a police
physician finally recommended Biko be transferred to a hospital, he was thrown naked in
the back of truck and transported on a twelve-hour drive to Pretoria. On September 12,
1977, alone, naked, lying on the floor of a cell in the Pretoria Central Prison, Biko died of
a cerebral hemorrhage.
The Minister of Law and Order, James Kruger, declared that Biko had died as the
result of a self-initiated hunger strike, although he had been in custody only a short time
before his death. The public, both in South Africa and around the world, was skeptical.
In response to international pressure, the apartheid government revised its official
statement. They reluctantly revealed that the cause of death was in fact brain damage,
resulting from head trauma. When the government released Biko's body for burial, his
old friend Donald Woods accompanied Biko's wife to the morgue. Woods took pictures
of the condition of the body, which showed clear signs of the brutal beating. Woods was
able to smuggle the photographs to a friend in London, who published the pictures in the
international press. World outcry, condemning the murder, quickly followed. The
apartheid regime soon began to suffer the consequences of Biko’s murder. Many South
African politicians, worried about their international public image, disassociated
themselves from the apartheid government that had facilitated their accumulation of
wealth and power. Around the world, government leaders, politicians and other public
figures nevertheless launched scathing criticism on South Africa. Inside the country,
tensions grew increasingly hot. It soon became apparent that South Africa was headed
for civil war. Apartheid began to disintegrate.
The murder of Stephen Biko was too much for black South Africans to bear.
What had been smoldering political activism now erupted into violent resistance. The
white minority, which had ruled since the 1600s through intimidation and a rigid social
structure, could not stand against the black majority that outnumbered them six to one.
Violence swept the country through the 1980s, and the world watched closely.
30
International attention turned to changing conditions in South Africa and the plights of
political prisoners. In the United States, grass roots movements began to pressure
American businesses to divest from South Africa as a show of condemnation of
apartheid.
The South African government soon became alienated from the international
community. Economic sanctions, product boycotts and trade blockades were imposed by
nearly every developed country around the world. The United States and Great Britain
refused to grant some diplomatic visas and, for a time, closed embassies in South Africa.
By February 2, 1990, South Africa had been permanently and irrevocably transformed.
Apartheid had lost its grip. The President of South Africa, F.W. de Klerk, finally
officially recognized the African National Congress and other black activist
organizations. Hundreds of political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela, were released
from prison. Within four years, Mandela won South Africa’s first democratic
presidential election. Stephen Biko’s life, and death, played a critical role in the toppling
of apartheid in South Africa. Biko was never found guilty of any of the charges for
which he was arrested, except failing to obey the orders that restricted his speech and
travel. Biko, of course, could never be silenced by mere orders. He knew well the risks
he faced and the likelihood that he would be murdered. Stephen Biko’s defiance,
perseverance and courage in the face of repeated, and ultimately fatal, acts of hostility
impressed not only his countrymen, but the world.
B. Selection
Like others here represented, Biko had suffered the loss of a close family member
as a child and, like others, Biko attained a position in society where he had uncommon
opportunities. Characteristic of the selfless motivation that is consistent with the warrior
ethic, Biko also chose to take on challenges and struggles that seemed certain to cause his
suffering or death. Biko’s writings reflect a remarkable cognizance of the risk he faced,
the likelihood of his assassination, and his willingness to pursue his objectives not only in
spite of his vulnerability, but in fact because he recognized that his suffering would have
a long term and significant influence that would survive his own death.
Biko had the means and the motivation to leave South Africa and start a better life
for himself elsewhere. Sensing the critical balance point between the established power
of the oppressive regime and the vast numbers of those oppressed straining to be free,
Biko knew that his efforts and involvement could make the difference that would tilt the
scale. His conscious decision to forgo his own personal opportunities in order to help
shove Apartheid in the direction it would fall characterize his deep sense of duty to serve
the greater good.
Constantly reminded of his own precarious position by frequent harassment and
arrest, Biko had little doubt of the potential consequences of his actions. Yet he remained
true and consistent to the cause of advancing the civil rights of his countrymen. For his
courage, self-sacrifice and effectiveness in setting in motion a chain of events that
contributed to the fall of an oppressive government, I believe Stephen Biko epitomizes
31
many of the fundamental qualities of a warrior and therefore deserves a place on the Wall
of Warriors.
Sources
1. A Life Worth Living: How the Life and Death of Stephen Biko Changed Apartheid,
available at http://www.telikon.com/biko.htm.
2. Mpotseng Jairus Kgokong, Bantu Stephen Biko, available at
http://www.azapo.org.za/biko.htm.
3. Bantu Stephen (Steve) Biko, available at http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/fm/1405-
6750-1377-0.
32
VII. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES: HARVEY MILK
“People who are willing to dedicate themselves to a cause
will always be resented by those who are not.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“I have never considered myself a candidate. I have always considered myself part of a
movement. It’s not about personal gain, not about ego, not about power—it’s about
giving . . . hope.”
Harvey Milk
A. Background
Harvey Milk was born on May 22, 1930, in Woodmere, New York. He attended
grade school and high school on Long Island, playing as linebacker for the Bayshore
High School football team. Milk attended college at Albany State, where he had a
reputation as a friendly and charismatic prankster. Milk was an average student
academically, but had a gift for writing. His senior year, he became a sports editor for the
State College News. Shortly after graduating from college in 1951, Milk enlisted in the
United States Navy, where he rose rapidly through the ranks. He served first as a
communications officer, then a chief petty officer aboard the U.S.S. Kittiwake, a San
Diego based aircraft carrier. During his stint on the Kittiwake, Milk coached the ship’s
wrestling team to a championship. He also mastered deep-sea diving, and became an
instructor.
Milk served four years in the navy before returning to civilian life. Though Milk
had exercised discretion regarding his sexual orientation while in the navy, he quickly
found that the problems of leading a double life were something he did not wish to suffer
indefinitely. Milk became increasingly open about his homosexuality. During the 1960s,
Milk lived in Manhattan, where he worked as an investment analyst on Wall Street.
In 1969, Milk left New York for California with a group of friends. Soon, he
became interested in San Francisco culture and politics. In 1972, Milk opened a camera
shop on San Francisco’s Castro Street, with his boyfriend Scott Smith. Though he loved
San Francisco and the opportunities it afforded him, Milk was troubled by the San
Francisco gay community’s political strategy. Instead of running for office themselves,
gays quietly leant support to straight liberal politicians, known as “friends,” whom they
believed were sympathetic. Milk believed strongly that gays needed to become more
visible if they ever hoped to achieve equal standing in the community. He recognized
that the primary protection of individual rights is participation in the political process.
Though he never claimed any such aspirations before, Milk enthusiastically embraced a
role in city politics.
33
In 1973, using his camera shop as campaign headquarters, Milk ran
unsuccessfully for the City Board of Supervisors, and later for State Assemblyman.
While his high profile presence was initially unsuccessful in gaining him a political
office, he gradually built a stronger and stronger foundation of support, and began to
erode some of the societal constraints that had forced most gays into lives of anonymity
and powerlessness. If Milk erred on the side of being overly flamboyant (which he did),
it was likely not to serve his own ego, but to counterbalance the stifling weight of
oppression with a defiant and zealous assertion of identity.
In 1977, Milk’s combination of boldness, charisma and political competence paid
off. He had a political identity that went beyond gay rights, and was surprisingly able to
win the support of a diverse group of San Francisco residents, including minorities, small
businesses and the Teamsters and Longshoremen’s Union. By focusing on an agenda
that addressed the needs of a cross-section of San Francisco's residents, Milk dispelled
the concern that his purpose was related only to his sexual orientation. By refusing to
pay homage to the traditional dealmakers and fundraisers who drive (and thus control)
most politicians, Milk was able to maintain his political and philosophical independence.
By appealing to citizens instead of special interests and political parties for support, Milk
remarkably became the first openly gay man to be elected to a substantial political office.
Not surprisingly, Milk had his share of critics and enemies. He received
voluminous hate mail and frequent death threats. Milk spoke often of the likelihood of
assassination. In preparation for the possibility that he would be murdered, Milk
recorded messages naming his preferred successors and clarifying his political positions.
The tape recordings contained a chilling and prophetic line that illustrated his willingness
to risk all for his mission. "I fully realize that a person who stands for what I stand for—
a gay activist—becomes [a] target . . .” said Milk, “If a bullet should enter my brain, let
that bullet destroy every closet door." (Shilts, p. 372).
On November 27, 1978, in city hall, Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone
were shot to death by fellow supervisor Daniel White. White had left the board, and then
become infuriated when Mayor Moscone denied his request to return. Within hours of
committing the killings, White confessed, but claimed he lacked the requisite mental
intent to be guilty of murder. He stood trial, offering the now infamous “Twinkie
defense,” arguing that his violent behavior was the result not of his own ill will, but of a
nutritional imbalance that had induced depression and homicidal rage. Crediting the
defense (or the motives behind it), the jury convicted White only of manslaughter. For
killing both men, White was sentenced to five years in prison.
After the verdict, the city erupted in protests and riots, some violent. Though
Milk himself had advocated for peace, tolerance and restraint, many of his supporters
were overcome with anger. As a result of the riots, more than one hundred and sixty
people were hospitalized. Soon, though, San Francisco returned to normal and in the
long term Milk’s supporters, both gay and straight, were able to return to a world that was
just a little more tolerant and a little more cognizant because of his efforts.
In his 1993 essay, The Forgotten Populist, Gregory Rosmaita captures the
fundamental spirit of liberty that drove Milk to a life, and ultimately a death, that served
the public interest.
34
Milk's goal in asserting gay pride through political empowerment was not
to force mainstream America to accept homosexuality, but to respect the
homosexual's right to be homosexual, without governmental interference
or hindrance. Milk fought not for the universal acceptance of
homosexuality as "an alternate life-style", but for a universal acceptance of
homosexuals as human beings, endowed by their creator with the same
unalienable rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
Harvey Milk was not solely a champion of gay rights. He was a champion of human
rights.
B. Selection
Of all my selections for the Wall of Warriors, Harvey Milk caused me the most
anxiety. Though we frequently joke about homosexuality at Modern Warrior to try to
diffuse the tension that surrounds this subject area, there is little doubt that it is one of the
most difficult issues for most people to discuss. In fact, when I was researching Milk, I
felt self-conscious and nervous just standing for “too long” in the Gay Studies sections of
bookstores. Those few seconds of anxiety gave me the faintest glimpse into some of the
issues of identity that are faced every day by millions of men and women.
We have gay students at Modern Warrior. In assessing a “need to know” in
serving on the screening committee, I have been alerted to issues of the vulnerability
perceived by people who worry about the possible victimization that they may face from
homophobic antagonists. We also have Modern Warrior students who have family
members who are gay, and who may feel protective, defensive, anxious or concerned.
For the reasons above, I somewhat hesitantly began to search for a figure in the
gay community who had faced and addressed some of these concerns. The more I
learned about Harvey Milk, the more I realized that the struggle of being a gay person in
the public sphere and working towards the public good requires warrior spirit. In
pursuing his goals, Harvey Milk made plenty of enemies. One of them ultimately killed
him. By drawing attention to himself, often in a flamboyant way, Milk was an easy
target. But if you look past the staged publicity stunts, you see a strategy of
empowerment, righteous confrontation and defiance. If you listen to Milk’s words, and
recognize the human qualities (of which his sexuality was only one) you quickly discover
a man who wanted to make the world a better, more tolerant and more thoughtful place to
live.
As a talented athlete, a member of the military and a shrewd businessman, Milk
could have adopted and emphasized attributes that could have shrouded him by
presenting an image contrary to the stereotypes of homosexuality. If he had done so,
especially in Manhattan where he lived for awhile, he could have lived a discrete life
generally free of social animus. When Milk became interested and concerned with
35
politics, he made a conscious decision to “out” himself; not only to ease his own internal
issues of identity, but to change the way other people could function in society. Looking
to civil rights models of black Americans, Milk quickly realized that any oppressed group
must have leaders who inspire by example, and that there is often a very high cost
associated with such efforts.
Milk took the death threats he received seriously enough to record several
statements of his wishes, to be considered in the event of his death. These statements
show that Milk was very much aware that he was part of a struggle and an issue that was
much greater than himself. Like many of the civil rights activists who had preceded him,
Milk realized the challenge and the danger of putting oneself up against a hostile societal
structure. Nevertheless, he persevered. For leading from the front, and thereby helping
to improve the lives of others by challenging the presumption of invisibility, anxiety and
denial that tormented a large number of individuals, I believe Harvey Milk deserves a
place on the Wall of Warriors.
Sources
1. Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (1982).
2. John Cloud, The Pioneer: Harvey Milk, in People of the Century: One Hundred Men
and Women Who Shaped the Last One Hundred Years (1999).
3. Gregory J. Rosmaita, The Forgotten Populist (1993) available at
http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/milk.html.
36
VIII. COMMUNITY SERVICE: DONALDINA CAMERON
“Judge [a master] . . . by the growth of [her] students;
for to do so is to look to the future.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“There was terror and consternation among the fifty . . . children in the Home, but
not one symptom of panic, or of cowardice. Older girls forgot their own fears in anxiety
to care for and soothe the little ones. Not one attempted to seek safety alone. All stood
to their duty . . .”
Donaldina Cameron, on her students during the San Francisco earthquake.
A. Background
From the middle of the nineteenth century, and well into the twentieth century, a
massive emigration of Asians into California brought with it the good and the bad
elements inherent in any culture. While most who left China came to America with the
same dreams as any hopeful immigrant, some came to exploit the vulnerabilities of the
new population. One vulnerability took the form of an enormous trade in human beings;
thousands of young women (some as young as ten years old) were brought to America
against their will, kidnapped or forced into unconscionable contracts and sold into slavery
as prostitutes and “domestics” (enslaved house servants).
While a number of young Chinese women were literally kidnapped off the street,
many Chinese families were tricked into willingly turning over their children to
criminals, who made promises of a better life for them in America. These criminals,
members of the Chinese underworld gangs or “Tongs,” told parents that their daughters
would be able to earn their freedom after completing a period of servitude and then
obtain high-paying jobs. Families sent their children off with the hope that they would
escape poverty in China and perhaps be able to send money back from America to help
with their desperate financial plights. In fact, the contracts were a ruse and the women
and girls were thrown into nearly hopeless circumstances. Thousands of these Asian
immigrant women died in enslaved conditions in San Francisco. Through the hard work
of a few missionaries, however, some were saved.
Donaldina M. Cameron took extraordinary measures to protect Chinese women
from the slave trade and the dangers of the Tongs. Cameron was born in 1869, the
daughter of a New Zealand sheep rancher who had settled in the lower San Joaquin
Valley, in California. In 1895, a woman named P.D. Browne, who was a member of the
Board of Directors of the Presbyterian Mission Home for Chinese Women in San
Francisco, paid a visit to the Cameron homestead. Browne told Cameron compelling
stories of the desperate conditions faced by the Chinese in San Francisco. She told
Cameron of how Chinatown was a separate community, with little or no protection from
37
American city officials who left matters largely in the hands of the Chinese consulate and
the Tongs. Cameron was moved by what she heard. At the age of twenty-five, Cameron
went to the mission to help with the work. Initially, Cameron served as a sewing teacher.
A few months after Cameron’s arrival at the mission the director, Margaret Culbertson,
became seriously ill. Culbertson soon died, and Cameron took over as director.
Cameron quickly became a legendary figure in Chinatown. By cultivating
contacts in the Chinese community, Cameron learned of the locations of women being
held captive and forced to work as prostitutes or servants. When she located a woman or
girl in need of help, Cameron tried to persuade city officials to take action against the
captors. While there was resistance among officials who were unsympathetic to
conditions in Chinatown, Cameron managed to successfully enlist the support of the San
Francisco police department in her rescue efforts.
Not content to leave matters entirely to authorities, however, Cameron
accompanied the police on raids, where she earned a reputation for being both fearless
and capable. She is known to have personally made forcible entries into Tong hideouts,
to have chased down Tong members and hold them for police, and for having an uncanny
knack for detecting the trapdoors and secret rooms where captive women were hidden.
Cameron was personally engaged in the struggles with the Tongs, including physical
confrontations where she reportedly used her umbrella as an improvised weapon.
To the frustration of the Tongs, Cameron brought the women she rescued back to
the mission, which was known to the Chinese as “Ming Quong” (meaning "radiant
light"). At the mission, Cameron cared for, educated and trained her students in skills
that would allow them to transition safely and successfully into American society. If the
women preferred to return home, Cameron would arrange safe passage back to China. In
appreciation for Cameron’s efforts, many of those who were rescued later named their
children "Lo Mo" (meaning “mother”), which was Cameron’s nickname. To those less
affectionate to her, Cameron was known as the “angry angel” and the “she devil.” The
Tongs grew to despise Cameron, and made frequent attacks on the mission, and her
personally. When the Tongs began kidnapping women out of the mission, Cameron
relocated them to more secluded locations in Mills College and Los Gatos.
In addition to protecting the young women and children from slavery and
exploitation, Cameron also guided her refugees through the infamous San Francisco
earthquake of 1933. While the earthquake destroyed the mission house at 920
Sacramento Street, Cameron was able to get all of the occupants to safety, and to rebuild
her safe house. Cameron worked as director of the mission (which ultimately evolved
into “Cameron House” in 1949) until her retirement in 1942. She remained active in
helping women for years after her retirement, well into her 90s. Cameron lived at 1020
California Avenue in College Terrace until her death in 1968. Though she is not widely
known outside of San Francisco, Cameron was and is revered in the Chinese community.
Elinor Cogswell, editor of the Palo Alto Times, marked the occasion of her 80th and 90th
birthdays with celebratory columns.
Cameron is credited with personally saving and rehabilitating more than three
thousand women. Since its inception, the institution started by Culberston and Cameron
has continued to play a critical role in providing services to people in Chinatown.
38
Currently, Cameron House offers a variety of community service programs aimed at
youth, adults and families. The institution provides leadership, counseling, support, crisis
intervention, educational facilities and advocacy. While the efforts of Cameron House
and its founders are not known to many, generations of Chinese have depended on the
institution for help. As challenges to Chinese-Americans and immigrants living in
Chinatown continue, so too will the legacy of Donaldina Cameron, carried on by her
students.
B. Selection
Not many people have heard of Donaldina Cameron. I believe this is mostly
because her efforts were concentrated so locally, and on a unique population. The ripple
effect of her actions, though, extends much farther than her fame. To the thousands of
individuals and families she helped, she is a hero. More importantly, Cameron was able
to convey her values and sense of duty to others in a way that was adaptable enough to
evolve with the times.
Cameron was born during a period where women faced significant societal
constraints. She herself no doubt felt the pressures of conformity, protocol and
expectation. Interestingly, she found a community that faced a tremendous magnification
of the obstacles she herself faced. Cameron was able to literally pluck kidnapped young
women from lives of oppression and servitude, and then impart to them the skills,
knowledge and empowerment that she herself characterized. Cameron’s influence was so
strong that it evolved into an institution that has gone far beyond her own personal
capacities.
Not all fights are fought on a grand scale, and not every warrior becomes famous.
In fact, the willingness to fight the righteous fight on behalf of a few people whom
society seems to care little about is a clear sign that the principle of sincerely wanting to
help others trumps the desire to be widely recognized for noble deeds. A woman with
Cameron’s charisma, knowledge, skills and attributes could have succeeded in many
fields. She could have taken on any number of causes more popular than the plight of
Chinese girls in the early 1900s. But she recognized that the needs of those girls were no
less important because they were not well known or appreciated. For her selflessness, her
compassion, and her ability to leave a legacy of goodwill and service that outlived her, I
believe Donaldina Cameron deserves a place on the Wall of Warriors.
Sources
1. Donaldina Cameron, Account of the Flight from Chinatown, available at
http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/ew15.html.
2. History of Cameron House, available at
http://www.cameronhouse.org/history/history_pic.html.
3. Cameron Park History, available at http://www.city.paloalto.
ca.us/parks/cameron.html.
39
4. Sandy Sims, EMQ's Auxiliary Members Turned Volunteer Work into Serious
Business, Los Gatos Weekly Times, November 8, 2000, available at
http://www.svcn.com/archives/lgwt/11.08.00/cover-0045.html.
5. Personal Interview with Mark Finguerra, Brooklyn, New York, May 9, 2002.
40
IX. HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS: LANCE ARMSTRONG*
“When you separate fear from training,
it’s no longer training,
It’s just exercising.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“Cancer taught me a plan for more purposeful living, and that in turn taught me how to
train and to win more purposefully. It taught me that pain has a reason, and that
sometimes the experience of losing things—whether health or a car or an old sense of
self—has its own value in the scheme of life . . . To be afraid is a priceless education.”
Lance Armstrong
A. Background
Lance Armstrong was born on September 18, 1971, in Plano, Texas. Raised by
his mother, Armstrong grew up in the suburbs of Dallas. He took an interest in athletics
at an early age. He competed in, and won, the Iron Kids triathlon when he was just
thirteen years old. At sixteen, he was receiving professional sponsorship. Though he
was a capable all-around athlete, Armstrong showed a particular interest in cycling. His
performance was impressive enough to draw the attention of the American national
cycling team. He was invited to train with the team when he was only a senior in high
school. In 1989, Armstrong qualified for the junior world championships. He traveled to
Moscow, where he was awakened to the excitement of international competition.
Armstrong’s victories piled up and, by 1991, he was the U.S. National Amateur
Champion. He then proceeded to win the First Union Grand Prix and the Thrift Drug
Classic (both notable races) in the same year. He finished second at the U.S. time trials,
and went on to compete in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, where he finished, despite high
hopes, in a disappointing 14th place.
Armstrong’s fall from the winners’ circle was brief, however. In 1993, he won
ten titles, including the U.S. Triple Crown and the World Race Championships. He
placed respectably in the Tour Du Pont in 1994 and, in 1995, went on to win it by the
largest margin of victory in the history of the race. 1995 was also marked by
Armstrong’s being named the Velo News American Male Cyclist of the Year. He also
became the first American to win the Classico San Sebastian. Taking advantage of
positive media attention, Armstrong launched the Lance Armstrong Junior Olympic Race
Series, designed to promote children’s participation in cycling.
Armstrong began 1996 as the number one ranked cyclist in the world. The first
competitor ever to do so, Armstrong won a second victory in the Tour Du Pont. As 1996
progressed, however, Armstrong's performance suffered from bouts of fatigue and
* Personal Struggle
41
bronchitis. At the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, he finished 12th, which, while not his
best showing, was good enough to get him a lucrative sponsoring contract with the
French company, Team Cofidis. In October of 1996, still suffering from perplexing
symptoms, Armstrong visited his doctor for a diagnosis. After conducting a battery of
tests, the young athlete was stunned to learn that he had testicular cancer. Because it had
gone untreated for some time, the cancer had spread to his abdomen, brain and lungs.
Given the progression of the disease, doctors gave him less than a fifty percent chance of
recovery.
Though shaken considerably, Armstrong began an aggressive regimen of
treatment. He underwent chemotherapy and multiple surgeries shortly after the
diagnosis. His exceptional physical condition, strong support from family and friends,
and his indomitable spirit sustained him. Armstrong approached his treatment actively,
carefully studying his disease and the available treatments. During his battle with cancer,
Armstrong realized that his celebrity status could be useful in drawing needed attention to
the disease. The form of cancer Armstrong suffered from can be particularly dangerous
because the men it afflicts rarely suspect it as a cause of symptoms, and therefore leave it
untreated, as he had. Armstrong, awakened to the threat of cancer and the importance of
detection, treatment and ongoing research, created the Lance Armstrong Foundation
(“Foundation”) shortly after his personal battle began. According to the Foundation
website, the Foundation “seek[s] to promote the optimal physical, psychological, and
social recovery and care of cancer survivors and their loved ones . . .. [It] focuses its
activities in the following areas: survivor services and support, groundbreaking
survivorship programs, and medical and scientific research grants.” The Foundation
website also features a “cancer profiler” designed to help people detect the onset of the
disease as early as possible.
Remarkably, within months of beginning treatment, Armstrong’s cancer was in
remission. By 1997, doctors informed Armstrong that he was healthy enough to resume
training. Through his work at the Foundation, Armstrong met, and later married, Kristin
Richard. In addition to her support, and the support of his friends and family, it was
Armstrong’s passion for cycling that kept him focused on battling the cancer. "It's
ironic,” he remarked, “I used to ride my bike to make a living. Now I just want to live so
that I can ride." Armstrong returned to his aggressive training program, determined to
regain his place as a competitor. Despite his optimism and his rapid recovery,
Armstrong’s main sponsor, Cofidis, dropped him, reluctant to accept his assertion that he
would be a champion again.
Armstrong began searching for a new sponsor, and found one in the United States
Postal Service. He returned to racing in 1998, gradually regaining his strength and
stamina. He competed in, and won, several minor races that year. Armstrong finished
his 1998 season with an overall fourth place finish at the World Championships in
Holland, which he achieved under adverse weather conditions that caused eighty-six out
of one hundred and fifty-two riders to drop out. Armstrong’s publicity produced great
results for the Foundation as well, which was able to award over $300,000 to cancer
research.
Through his success in 1998, Armstrong had once again established himself as a
competitor. His sights, however, were aimed at the top. Armstrong’s focus was on the
42
Tour De France, cycling’s preeminent race. The Tour De France lasts over three weeks,
and covers over two thousand miles. In 1999, Armstrong’s performance in the race
stunned the world. Leading the Tour De France from start to finish, Armstrong
established a new record for average speed of approximately twenty-five miles per hour.
Armstrong’s victory catapulted him to a new plane of athletic achievement. Not only did
he manage to win the 1999 Tour De France, Armstrong proceeded, despite a frightful
training accident, to secure his place as one of the world’s greatest athletes: he replicated
his victory in consecutive Tour De France races in 2000 and 2001, silencing his now
regretful skeptics for good.
B. Selection
This test required that I select at least one person who experienced an intense
personal struggle that had an influence on others. While many (if not all) of the other
selections had experienced “personal struggles” of one kind or another, I wanted to find
someone whose experience was unique to them, yet still managed to have a positive
effect on others. While cancer is not a unique illness, Lance Armstrong’s experience
with it clearly is. There are several remarkable aspects of Armstrong’s struggle with
cancer.
First, the disease attacked him at what appeared to be the height of his athletic
career. Armstrong appeared to be in near-perfect physical condition when he was
diagnosed, yet his body was fighting a desperate struggle internally. His youth and
athleticism did not make him impervious to contracting a serious disease. This should
stand as a sobering warning to those young people who often are lured into complacent
recklessness.
Second, Armstrong’s immediate response to the disease was to make it not only
an aggressive, personal fight, but also to use his celebrity status to immediately warn
others of the danger that they too might be facing. When Armstrong started the
Foundation, he did not know if he would win his fight with cancer. He only knew that
others could benefit from his warning.
Third, Armstrong not only made a quick recovery, he actually surpassed the
physical capabilities he had exhibited before he became ill. To many people, cancer
represents a road to progressive physical deterioration. While Armstrong is clearly an
exceptional human being, he stands for the proposition that one cannot only “survive”
cancer, one can win decisively. He defied the skepticism of his sponsors and critics and
became a more competitive athlete than he was before. It seems that, rather than
debilitating him, the fight with cancer awakened a spirit in Armstrong that had not
existed before.
I believe the reason Armstrong has surpassed all other competitors in his sport is
that, after he was diagnosed with cancer, his training was no longer about winning a race,
it was about winning a fight. While we can debate the merits of competitive sports, they
are undeniably a forum for expressing some of the most compelling human traits. Once
43
Armstrong resumed training after his illness, the races were no longer just metaphors for
life’s struggles— they were the rewards.
Cycling is not the most popular sport in America, but Armstrong brings to it
exuberance and dedication that have drawn perhaps millions of new fans. Many of them
are themselves struggling with cancer. To see Lance Armstrong experiencing the joy of
competition and victory is a triumphant statement about the capacities of a human being
to defy and to surpass the limitations that many people are perhaps too willing to accept.
Winning bicycle races in and of itself does not save lives. But, in the case of
Lance Armstrong, it does provide an inspirational example of the desire, the ability and
the will to win against a daunting foe; not the other racers, but the frailties of the human
condition itself. When all is said and done, and we look at the grim business of fighting,
we must remember what warriors are fighting for—inevitably, the opportunity for good
people to experience the joys of life. Lance Armstrong has shared his strength, his joy
and his appreciation for life. For his willingness and his ability to share these qualities
with others, when he could merely use them to assert his own interests, I believe Lance
Armstrong deserves a place on the Wall of Warriors.
Sources
1. Matthew Ross, Biography, available at
http://www.askmen.com/men/sports/40c_lance_armstrong.html.
2. About Lance, available at http://www.laf.org/About_Lance.
3. About the Lance Armstrong Foundation, available at http://www.laf.org.
4. Biography of Lance Armstrong, available at
http://www.lancearmstrong.com/bio.html.
5. Quotes from Lance Armstrong, available at
http://www.lancearmstrongfanclub.com/lancequotes.html.
44
X. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH: STEPHEN HAWKING
“Wisdom does not belong to those
who possess it.
Wisdom belongs to those who seek it.”
Phil Messina, Path of a Warrior
“What is the nature of the universe? [I]f we . . . discover a complete theory, it should in
time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we
shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the
discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist.”
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
A. Background
Stephen William Hawking was born on January 8, 1942 in Oxford, England. He
lived in Oxford throughout World War II, until he was eight years old when his family
moved to St. Albans. Hawking attended St. Albans School, and then went on to Oxford.
Hawking wanted to study mathematics, but it was not an available course of study, so he
studied physics instead. After three years, Hawking earned a degree in Natural Science.
Hawking then went on to Cambridge to do research in Cosmology, which is,
according to the American Heritage Dictionary, “the study of the physical universe
considered as a totality of phenomena in time and space.” Hawking’s mentor at
Cambridge was Denis Sciama. After earning his Ph.D., Hawking became first a
Research Fellow, and later a Professorial Fellow at Gonville and Caius College. After
leaving the Institute of Astronomy in 1973, Hawking came to the Department of Applied
Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and has remained there since 1979, holding the
post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.
Throughout his career, Hawking has scrutinized the laws that govern the universe.
His work has built on and expanded the findings of other great scientists, like Newton,
Galileo and Einstein. For example, Hawking has shown that Einstein's General Theory
of Relativity implied that space and time should have a beginning in the Big Bang and an
end in black holes. Hawking’s findings suggest that it is necessary to unify General
Relativity with Quantum Theory, the two greatest scientific developments of the first half
of the twentieth century. In this quest for unification, Hawking has posited that black
holes are not completely “black,” but emit radiation and eventually will evaporate.
Another theory to emerge from his work is that the universe has no edge or boundary in
time.
Hawking has published numerous works, including The Large Scale Structure of
Spacetime with G. F. R. Ellis, General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, with W.
Israel, and 300 Years of Gravity, also with W. Israel. Hawking’s three popular books
45
consist of his best seller A Brief History of Time, his later book, Black Holes and Baby
Universes and Other Essays, and, most recently, The Universe in a Nutshell. Hawking’s
scholarly awards and honors are also numerous. He holds twelve honorary degrees and
was made a Companion of Honour in 1989. He is also a Fellow of The Royal Society
and is a Member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Despite his rigorous
commitment to his work, Hawking has managed to balance a family life with his research
and his demanding lecture and travel engagements. Ironically, the man with so much to
say about the farthest reaches and workings of the universe has been forced into a lifelong
war with an illness that would destroy his ability to communicate if he could not
adapt.
Hawking suffers from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (“ALS,” also known as
“Lou Gehrig’s Disease”), a progressive and debilitating motor neuron disease. He first
became suspicious that something might be wrong with him during his third year at
Oxford. Although he was able to participate in sports, he began to experience episodes
where he would lose muscular control and fall for no apparent reason. It was not until
later, however, when Hawking went on to graduate school, that his family became
concerned and insisted that he visit a doctor.
Soon after his twenty-first birthday, Hawking went into a hospital for tests.
Doctors took muscle samples, prodded him with electrodes, and injected his spine with
opaque fluid so they could better able observe his bodily functions on x-rays. For
Hawking, the experience was frightening and disorienting. The doctors offered no
diagnosis, explaining only that he was an atypical case. The doctors told him he could
expect to get worse, and that there was nothing they could do, except give him vitamins.
In his essay Disability— My Experience with ALS, Hawking recounts:
The realization that I had an incurable disease, that was likely to kill me in
a few years, was a bit of a shock. How could something like that happen
to me. (sic) Why should I be cut off like this. (sic) However, while I had
been in [the] hospital, I had seen a boy I vaguely knew die of leukemia, in
the bed opposite me. It had not been a pretty sight. Clearly there were
people who were worse off than me. At least my condition didn't make
me feel sick. Whenever I feel inclined to be sorry for myself I remember
that boy.
Not knowing what was going to happen to him, or how rapidly the disease would
progress, Hawking struggled with depression. The doctors told him to go back to
Cambridge and carry on with his research. Hawking was concerned, however, that he
might not live long enough to finish his Ph.D. He suffered disturbing dreams and became
disengaged from life. For a while, depression got the better of him.
Hawking credits recurring dreams with helping him to work out of his depression.
Before his disease, Hawking had been very bored with life. There were times when there
seemed to him to be nothing worth doing. Shortly after he was diagnosed, Hawking
dreamed that he was going to be executed. He suddenly realized that there were a lot of
worthwhile things he could do if he were given a pardon. In another recurring dream,
Hawking had a vision that he would sacrifice his life to save others. The sense of
46
sacrifice and purpose surprised Hawking with a new sense of self-worth. He found that
he began to enjoy life in the present more than he did before his disease.
With his newfound spirit, Hawking again began to make progress with his
research. He became engaged to a woman named Jane Wilde, whom he had met at
around the same time he was diagnosed. “The engagement,” explains Hawking on his
website, “changed my life. It gave me something to live for. But it also meant that I had
to get a job.” With a newfound sense of promise, as well as responsibility, Hawking
applied for a research fellowship at Gonville and Caius (pronounced Keys) College, in
Cambridge. Hawking got the job, and was married shortly thereafter. Ironically, as
Hawking’s scientific reputation increased, his disability got worse. Though he could still
do research, his ability to lecture became increasingly threatened by his disease.
With some difficulty

Test of the Mind: The Wall Of Warriors

Seth Ducharme

Test of the Mind:
The Wall Of Warriors