Albert Nicholl the philanthropist, aside from formerly being engaged in deep military service, lived an eclectic life but would be better known and remembered more in Bermuda for his generosity.

Some of the beneficiaries of his generosity were the former vocational training school the Nicholl Institute, the Bermuda Technical Institute, the building of the maternity ward and numerous scholarships to Berkeley Institute and Dellwood students during the paying years. Then, ultimately, a major scholarship that puts hundreds of thousands of dollars each year towards deserving students.

Nicholl himself was fortunate and was indeed given an opportunity to do business in Bermuda under the auspices of the Bank of Bermuda. It was a business favour that he cherished and in his gratitude sought to repay to Bermuda — in particular towards the development of the youth through education.

Of interest is that this was also the legacy of his British father and MP, whom he sought to emulate. It is said that amid the smoky room that characterised his office hung an imposing portrait of his dad. In that regard, there is much to be said about the effective role of fatherhood.

In studying the history of the formation of the Bermuda Technical Institute, the little role played by Albert Nicholl that preceded its inception caught my eye as a little uncelebrated factor of its existence.

As importantly, his legacy sets a standard and provides a role model that others, as well as I, could only pray to be able to follow.

Nicholl was dismayed that his donation towards the development of the Nicholl Institute, circa 1941, went into building a segregated school, and he publicly declared his displeasure.

I can only imagine he felt redeemed that the unused portion of the £10,000 that he had donated was used as the seed money for the Bermuda Technical Institute, which was a fully integrated school of teachers and pupils.

This happened in 1956, three years before the historically forced desegregation within general society and long before the public schools were integrated, which occurred almost a decade later.

He donated the bulk of his estate to an educational fund, his generous nature bringing to mind the maxim “what does it profit a man should he gain the whole world and lose his soul”.

It is certainly far more honourable and noble that persons recognise their life as an instrument to serve humanity and use their avarice and success to the benefit of his fellow humans, rather than to achieve a monument to edify themselves.

Bill Gates is another modern-day example, while the deceased Freddie Yearwood was a quiet warrior in similar vein.

Who should we prefer as national heroes or standard bearers?

Should we prefer a knight in shining armour with chariots of gold who builds himself to seek honour and who ends with a tombstone filled with ivory?

Or should we anoint a simple warrior who decorates his people instead and ensures that they have the tools for future success?

Better still, which would you rather be and have lived as a legacy?

These are societal choices because, truthfully, we all innately know and we either encourage these tendencies in persons by celebrating bad character, or we encourage and endorse humility.

Society at times honours crooks who are often bellicose and boastful or simply because they look good and glittery. Thereby, society becomes complicit with vanity.

A society will rise or fall because of its values, and nothing depicts values more than what society requires of its leaders, whether in business, politics or faith.

Given the example of persons such as Albert Nicholl, if I had an office wall, alongside my father’s picture, somewhere on that wall I would want a picture of an Albert Nicholl, Bill Gates or Freddie Yearwood.