The Prize

No, she hasn’t won it, yet.

The prize she has worked for much of her life.

No, not the Nobel Peace Prize.

She finally was able to accept that prize: Saturday, June 16, 2012 in Oslo Norway.   She was awarded the prize in 1991, but couldn’t accept personally, she wouldn’t be able to get back into Burma.

The prize she has worked for most of her life is: free speech, democracy, and peace in Burma.  However, she says that are still prisoners of conscience, and as long as there is one prisoner of conscience, despite that she has been released, one too many.

No, her work is not done.  There is no peace, free speech, and democracy in Burma — but things are progressing, slowly.

She can’t rest on her laurels.  But then Aung San Sui Kyi, the Iron Butterfly, Counselor Idealist, Diplomatic Contender, has her eyes firmly focused on the REAL PRIZE, and she will not be turned away from her impossible dream, fame or no fame.  She has no a-gati.

Please Understand Me Blog |  Iron Butterfly

0 thoughts on “The Prize”

  1. I am for anybiody who says, “I believe in human rights and I believe in the rule of law. Societal values in view it’s difficult to impossible to a society fromt the exterior. I wish her well, we don’t manage our own society in an intelligent manner. As for the poll Gandhi had some real quirks, liked to sleep with young women. He said sleep but. and While many people are aware that Gandhi drank his urine….. As for Eleanor, she had a mean side and trashed a good man Teddy Roosvelt Junior her cousin. Oddly enough she learned much of social concerns from her uncle, Teddy Roosvelt. Teddy Junior was a first rate soldier and 2nd rate politicain. He won the Medal of Honor on Utah beach. The more you know about people the harder it is to quantify them.

    1. …I think also the point of ‘Temperament Blogs’ is that, (in this case), relatively well known examples of Contending Diplomatic Intelligence, the ‘noise’ around people apart from their Temperament can be much and varied, (ie what Wes just wrote about Ganhi for example), but at end of the day, he was an excellent example of Contending Idealist, ‘standing his ground diplomatically’. The theme of Aung San Suu Kyi’s life and role in Burma, Havel as well. So the examples do need to be Contending Idealists, relatively world famous. As in, world stage. Not just American. (With all respect to the Americans). But Diplomatic Contending examples just as important.

      1. I have to admit, I don’t really know much about Gandhi. Do you think he changed much from his early youth. To my mind, Gandhi wanted things his way and would not give way. If there was a moral concern, his tenacity could perhaps work against assimilation with a group. You can have true believers but if you act within a “cult of personality” you can diminish others view of you. I am never sure how altruistic a person is and how much is playing to the crowd. Many questions, fewer answers.

  2. Elanor sponsored the UN Declaration, which was poorly written, at best regarded as human rights, to many perks which only the richest nations could enjoy, is exceedingly utopian, and could lean to the Orwellian in places(such as the “right” to compulsory education.

    Ghandi’s cause was not as holy as many who admire him think, there is something dubious about pacifism used as a propaganda weapon in a political power struggle not least because the stakes in politics always include the right to coerce which is inseparable from government. In any case, whether Bengalis instead of Anglos give orders to tribes in India equally unconnected to both is not a “spiritual” cause, Anglos had been there long enough to not be considered aliens any more and Sikhs might have some questions about the new regimes anti-imperialism. Furthermore as has been indicated his personal life was not above reproach; and his sanctimonious justifications for infidelity smack of psychological domestic abuse.

    There are some people who could be included that weren’t. Why not Raoul Wallenberg?

    1. In the book “The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People” there are some real questions raised as to his honesty to himself. First he was married as I remember at about 13 and he was over 60 when he gave up women for sex. I suspect that his wife applauded that decsion and there is real reason real to think that they were long standingmarital tension. I don’t ry.

  3. As to the poll. I would submit an alternative person. Theordor Roosevelt Sr. Roosevelt founded the New York Orthopedic Hospital. Roosevelt organized what appeared to be a social party for the upper crust of New York City. When the would-be revelers arrived, however, what they saw to their great surprise, were small children in new braces specially constructed for them. Moved to tears by the sight, one of the wealthiest socialites, Mrs. John Jacob Astor III said, “Theodore, you are right; these children must be restored and made into active citizens again and I for one will help you in your work.” That same exact day enough money was collected to start the hospital. He contributed large sums to the Newsboys’ Lodging-house and the Young Men’s Christian Association. The thousands of cast off children in New York was a huge problem and Roosevelts concern for them limitless.
    He organized the Bureau of United Charities, and was a commissioner of the New York State Board of Charities. He was a director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and of the American Museum of Natural History.[1]

    Teddy Roosevelt learned from this good man, his father and Eleanor daughter of Elliot Roosevelt and grandaughter of Teddy Roosevelt Senior all were influence by his life.

  4. Wes’s://I have to admit, I don’t really know much about Gandhi. Do you think he changed much from his early youth. To my mind, Gandhi wanted things his way and would not give way. If there was a moral concern, his tenacity could perhaps work against assimilation with a group. You can have true believers but if you act within a “cult of personality” you can diminish others view of you. I am never sure how altruistic a person is and how much is playing to the crowd. Many questions, fewer answers.//—-“Wanting things his way, not giving way”…I would wholly agree that can be a tendency within ‘us’ Idealists. The driving force is very powerful, I think that obvious through examples of us Idealists, perhaps especially the Counselors and Healers.

    Not sure if you knew a huge influence upon a younger Gandhi was actually another Idealist, Tolstoy, (Champion), an Advocating Idealist. The relevance to Gandhi is explained somewhat here: http://www.sgiquarterly.org/feature2010Jan-9.html

    I can’t cut and paste from the site the bits I want, the impact of Tolstoy upon a person who is hardwired similarily, it would be like ‘oh crap, bingo!’ moment, Aha-Erlebnis ! joining the dots. Knowing so much is wrong but how the hell to achieve and change…even though being of Diplomatic Intelligence somedays you just want to crash-the-hell-through-or-die-trying, aka Joan of Arc, and if able to grasp a better insight, (perhaps as Gandhi did via Tolstoy), you get to shine. I do think he changed brain gears, many people do. He virtually acknowledges this on the page I just linked, in his own words. All very interesting from a Temperament view. Patterns, patterns…

  5. Maybe my irritation with Gandhi is simply his overinflation. As political activists go he wasn’t that bad; he hadn’t blood on his hands at least not directly(nobody remembers the Partition Riots which were an unintended consequence of the Indian Nationalist Movement), which is more then can be said for some of his counterparts. I just think he doesn’t really deserve the de facto beatification and that his methods carry the dark side that anyone can use them and gain a reputation for their cause separate from it’s actual merits-his admirers aren’t just beatifying a person, they are beatifying a tactic.

    That said, I do continue in my advocacy for Wallenberg. He was a great man and saved many lives at the cost of his own.

  6. Wallenberg’s life, his story, his achievements are nothing short of incredible. I am awaiting some books on him. Do you have an opinion on his temperament JT?

      1. I was able to order in 3 x biographies of him, at library, (am very excited about this!). Meanwhile I have been studying him from what is available over web. Have tentaively come up with an Idealist. I am caught between Counselor, ie standing his ground atop the train, handing out falsified passports, or if indeed a Healer. I am struggling with his temperament, the same struggle I have with Lawrence of Arabia, and my temperament I fear is getting in the way of this, (I am Healer Idealist) just identify so much with the way they are going about things, the things they express (from what I have been able to access). He is reconciling the last part of his life, he harbors no animosity, this from the cellmates who spent last days with him. He IS a bout ‘Saving’ people, but is he the mentoring Idealist, or more the advocating Idealist. I really need more information.

  7. To be honest I am not sure myself and what information I have I read a long time ago. I have been waiting for a long time for a biography that I was satisfied with.

  8. JT..//I just think he doesn’t really deserve the de facto beatification and that his methods carry the dark side that anyone can use them and gain a reputation for their cause separate from it’s actual merits-his admirers aren’t just beatifying a person, they are beatifying a tactic//-well said, society can do this. We really must learn to delve into our critical thought bank. I have opened up that CT bank account, I do try to use it, but sometimes I struggle too. We, each as temperaments, have our dark side, there is the pros and cons. That was also my response to Gandhi too, AFTER I researched him, learnt more about him. Perhaps the film glorified him as well, films can be very hit and miss, Margaret Thatcher’s (Meryl great) was just annoying. I am learning I can have a too high an expectation for those now unfamiliar with temperament. The better side of our temperament, and the darker angels..(thanks Steve Pinker 🙂 )

  9. It will be interesting to see how Aung San Suu Kyi is portrayed in the new film, I think? they are playing up the love story part. The first film, the Aussie one was not particularly good either. I am thinking a good done documentary takes cake. Emphasising temperament role. We need to make these ourselves. Dave? 🙂

  10. Actually I thought you were an idealist from the way you talked, Pam. I am a Rational(which is not to say that I am always rational in the normal sense; nobody is).

    It’s quite true we all have our dark side. The descriptions Kiersey give tends to emphasize the positive traits of each type and that is just as well. But we all have our dark side. I tend to be pedantic, and irritable, and to be honest I have a hard time making myself work-not sloth in the general sense(once I have an assignment I do it rigorously which is why I am a good library assistant) but a lack of enterprise that keeps me from being able to force myself to do things. The last flaw has hurt me more then any of the flaws I have that I know of(probably I have some that I don’t know of; I assume everyone has). Maybe I have my P part unusually developed and my J part more then a bit limited.

  11. Oh undoubtably they will play up the love story in a movie about Aung. That’s what movies do, even when it doesn’t fit the plot.

    As for “needing to make these ourselves”, assuredly. Actually I have often thought that one of the most useful places for the system is a writer’s tool for building and critiquing characters. I had a harder time making characters before I came across this system.

  12. Thought provoking comments JT. And interesting.
    I had forgotten Einstein’s remark about Gandhi also:

    //”Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth. (said of Mahatma Gandhi)”

    — Albert Einstein//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *