found a paper from a couple terms ago, and...much like the nonsensical piece I posted a couple days ago on German military philosophy, I thought I would post it up here before I deleted it. Read at your own peril.
I should point out that Chief Joseph was, in my opinion, one of the greatest men in the history of our nation. Knowing he was being wrong, he sought what was best for his people. He sacrificed abstract principles such as "personal honor" and "justice" in favor of doing what was best for his people long-term. And only 40 miles separated him from...what? Well, who knows what would have happened in Canada. I have always been fascinated by the struggle the U.S. put on to keep these people they hated and feared within "our" borders...what was gained by preventing them from moving to Canada? There is an excellent book to be written about that idea. This...this isn't it.
M. Andrew Barton
Biblical Leadership question 4
Different times call for different attributes in leadership. The things that lead to greatness in one area often lead to tragedy in another era. Sometimes the same attributes that bring greatness later cause disaster. Napoleon is an example of that where his military leadership carried him to greatness, but he pushed past his limits and ended up falling victim to his own success. Other times, it is not what is accomplished but what is prevented that demonstrates greatness. Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce is an example of that. His leadership preserved his people when events easily could have led to their extermination. This paper will examine what made Chief Joseph a great leader and compare his leadership to Moses.
Chief Joseph was the son of a chief, also called Chief Joseph. The elder chief had adopted many of the white man’s ways and sought to lead his people in peace and harmony with the wasichus.[1] The one area he would not compromise was in land concessions. He had agreed to an initial treaty that retained all traditional Nez Perce land claims in 1855, but after 1863 he was in conflict with the U.S. government, refusing to sign or acknowledge a treaty taking 6 million acres away from the Nez Perce.[2]
He taught his son, the man most people know as Chief Joseph, that the land was a sacred trust given to the people by the Great Spirit. He told his son to never give up the land. The younger and more famous Chief Joseph then had the heavy responsibility of leading a heavily outnumbered, peaceful people who wanted only to hunt and fish on their traditional lands against a stronger, more aggressive, less ethical country that was interested only in taking the “unused” land of the Nez Perce.
The leadership of Chief Joseph during this period was founded in a few select principles. The first of these was his personal charisma. While no record exists of Chief Joseph experiencing an ecstatic vision he still proved to be a charismatic leader. His charisma was rooted in his personality.
It started with his obvious care for his people. For Joseph, the land and the people were inextricably linked. He could no more think of his people leaving their land than he could conceive of the land being sellable to the wasichus. Joseph worked tirelessly to keep his people safe and at peace with the settlers, even when the settlers were clearly in violation of treaties. Joseph recognized early on that regardless of provocation, any militant move by the Nez Perce would be regarded as a move by “hostiles” and the U.S. government would respond quickly with tremendous force. As a result, Joseph worked to keep his people from retaliating against the more numerous wasichus, even when wronged.
His continual efforts gave the Nez Perce years of peace that might otherwise have been full of conflict. He was able to do this under steadily declining conditions such as were experienced by numerous other regional tribes such as the Bannocks. This was tangible proof for the people of his leadership capabilities. His constant remonstrations of the people to maintain the peace were therefore much easier to understand and follow.
A second factor was his awareness of and respect for the Great Spirit. He did not make a point of this belief but simply acknowledged it as a matter of course. His quotations include numerous references to how the Great Spirit would like his people to live. Other quotations reference his belief that Nez Perce ways were specifically designed to be in accordance with the will of the Great Spirit. This religious leadership gave him great credibility with his people.
His charisma extended also to the wasichu world. He was well respected by numerous important United States officials, including but not limited to General O.O. Howard, the official who eventually received the responsibility for removing the Nez Perce under Joseph to a smaller reservation despite there being no such treaty with them. This personal charisma seems to have been based in his personality and ability as an orator.
His oratory is legendary even today. Many people who know little or nothing of his story can quote part or all of his surrender speech when he said, “From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.” But the power of his oratory extends well beyond that. For Native American scholars he remains one of the most quotable Native Americans when examinations of Native American-U.S. government relations are examined. One fine example is used when discussing illegal land seizures by the U.S. government. Joseph said, “Suppose a white man should come to me and say ‘Joseph, I like your horses, and I want to buy them.’ I say to him, ‘No, my horses suit me, I will not sell them.’ Then he goes to my neighbor and says to him, “Joseph has some good horses. I want to buy them, but he refuses to sell.’ My neighbor answers, ‘Pay me money, and I will sell you Joseph’s horses.’ The white man returns to me, and says, ‘Joseph, I have bought your horses and you must let me have them.’ If we sold our lands to the government, this is the way they bought them.”[3]
But his leadership proved capable for more reasons than just personal charisma and oratory. Joseph was wise enough to surround himself with other talented leaders. It is generally held that his war leader was his brother Ollicut and other important leaders included renowned men such as Too-hul-hul-sote, White Bird, and Looking Glass. It is a mark of a great leader to be able to accept other men in important leadership positions when they are better able to handle those duties. This left Joseph more time to guide and reassure his people when the tragic run for Canada began.
It was that very flight that marks the final aspect of his leadership to be addressed here. Though the land was sacred and precious to Joseph and though he never once believed or said the taking of his land was just, he still tried to do what was best for his people. When Howard told him that, right or wrong, the move to the smaller reservation off their traditional lands was going to happen, Joseph negotiated a 30 day extension to give his people time to dispose of their livestock and prepare for the move. This diplomacy was brilliant, but even here Joseph would be undercut by the wasichu.
Impatient with the “leniency” Howard granted the Nez Perce in the extension, several settlers did some raiding. For the first known time in history, some Nez Perce reacted with violence against the whites. Approximately 20 warriors retaliated. It was at this time that Joseph demonstrated his wisdom.
Even though it was perhaps a score of Nez Perce who committed the crime (which, by the way, might even have been justified under the circumstances), Joseph knew the wasichu way was to punish all. He also knew the unwarlike Nez Perce could easily be wiped out in warfare. Somehow, through arguing, cajoling, guiding, and every other means he knew, he convinced the people to flee rather than fight, prevailing against the more warlike advice of Looking Glass and even his brother Ollicut, among others.
Book after book has been written about his leadership in the flight. It covered 1300 miles, about 50 days, and numerous engagements in which the formerly peaceful, badly outmanned Nez Perce again and again defeated the better mounted, better equipped professional U.S. Army. Though Joseph probably did not even participate in the battles, it was his personal leadership that held together the tiny band between the fights and brought them to within 40 miles of freedom and safety in Canada.
Even in surrender Joseph showed his leadership by negotiating a treaty that returned his people to their new reservation with no further punishments. Unfortunately for the Nez Perce, this treaty was later invalidated by the U.S. Congress and he himself never saw his beloved homeland again, but this does not take away from his accomplishments if the people he had treated with were as honest and trustworthy as he himself was. Notwithstanding the final betrayal, his leadership preserved the integrity of the Nez Perce as a recognizable unit through overwhelming odds and incredibly difficult situations.
In many ways Joseph reminds me of Saul. Both led a small nation against more powerful enemies. Both had leaders for their army who far outstripped their own accomplishments. Both were ultimately doomed leaders even as they tried to do what was best for their people. Both believed in an all powerful God, and most saw that God desert them.
An example of their similarities comes from their reliance on others to lead their forces in battle. Jonathan was a far better war leader than Saul. Scripture records Jonathan being responsible for important victory against the Philistines.[4] David overcame Goliath while Saul stayed in his tent, the inference being he was too afraid to fight Goliath himself.[5] Furthermore, it was Abner who was leader of the armies[6] which indicates Saul, like Joseph, relied upon talented men when it was to his advantage.
Their doom comes from two sources, however. In Joseph’s case it has come down to us in historical memory as being a result of overwhelming numbers and technological difference whereas in the case of Saul it was for cultic misbehavior when Saul took upon himself the office of priesthood and it resulted in the charismatic connection with God turning from good to evil.
It is interesting to note that both Joseph and Saul strove to do what was best for their people. Saul wanted the blessing of God which led him to violate the priestly office. He wanted to sacrifice to God which led him to violate the command of genocide. Joseph, by contrast, was willing to desert his sacred home, recognizing that to stay was to die.
Ultimately, the forces they fought against doomed each of them. From the day Saul allowed Agag to live his life could only end in tragedy as evidenced by Samuel departing him until Saul called him up from the dead at Endor.[7] Every action he took after that was marked by his separation from the good graces of God.
This is another interesting similarity. Both men believed in a God of tremendous power. For Saul it was Yahweh and for Joseph it was the Great Spirit. Both believed completely that God was in control of their destiny. The difference came when it seemed God had deserted them.
Saul fruitlessly sought the return of God’s good grace. He appealed to the prophets and, when that failed, tried to talk to God through Samuel through the services of the woman at Endor. By contrast, when it seemed the land the Great Spirit had granted the Nez Perce could not be held, Joseph pragmatically sought to lead them away from the “Promised Land” to a land far away. He believed in God but acted based on his own wisdom rather than fruitlessly seeking to change the inevitable.
For Joseph, battling the overwhelming numbers, technology, military might and land greed of the wasichus was never a winnable battle. His best diplomatic efforts could only slow, not stop, the taking of Nez Perce land. His best negotiations could and would be invalidated by men sitting in a building thousands of miles away as again and again Congress modified the treaties Joseph agreed to in good faith.
In both cases the leaders strove to be good, even great leaders but forces beyond their control and, it might be argued, beyond their understanding led to their inevitable defeat. This did not mean they were not good leaders but simply that sometimes, no matter how great the leader, the situation is simply impossible to overcome.
Bibliography
http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Chief_J_Yalekt.html accessed 2/10/06
http://www.indians.org/welker/joseph1.htm accessed 2/10/06
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/a_c/chiefjoseph.htm accessed 2/10/06
http://www.indians.org/welker/joseph.htm accessed 2/9/06
http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=1503, p. 213- 232 accessed 2/11/06
Native American Testimony: A Chronicle of Indian-White Relations from Prophecy to the Present, 1492 – 1992, edited by Peter Nabokov, New York, 1991, 129-133
Johnson, Michael P., Reading the American Past; Selected Historical Documents, Volume II: From 1865, Bedford/St. Martins, 2002
Brown, Dee, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee; An Indian History of the American West, New York, 1976
[1] Wasichu was a Nez Perce word for the citizens of the United States. It meant much more than simply skin color and included commentary on culture, motivation, and character.
[2] http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Chief_J_Yalekt.html, accessed 2/10/06
[3] Chief Joseph before Congress, January 14th, 1879, recorded in Native American Testimony, edited by Peter Nabokov, New York, 1991, p. 133
[4] I Samuel Chapter 13-14
[5] I Samuel Chapter 17
[6] I Samuel 17:55-58
[7] I Samuel 15
4 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment