Modern Leadership Through the Eyes of Sitting Bull and Quanah Parker: A Native Perspective on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump
Evaluating modern leaders like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump through the lens of historic Native American leaders such as Sitting Bull and Quanah Parker requires considering the values, priorities, and circumstances that guided these indigenous leaders. Both Sitting Bull and Quanah Parker were leaders who fiercely defended their people's sovereignty, cultural identity, and way of life in the face of overwhelming external pressures.
Sitting Bull
Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Lakota leader, is best known for his resistance to U.S. government policies and his role in the Battle of Little Bighorn. He was a staunch advocate for the sovereignty and rights of his people, deeply committed to preserving their land and way of life. His leadership was characterized by spiritual guidance and a firm stance against assimilation and encroachment by the U.S. government.
Assessment of Kamala Harris:
From Sitting Bull’s perspective, Harris’s efforts to protect Native sovereignty, support cultural preservation, and advocate for Native rights might be seen as positive steps. Her support for the Indian Child Welfare Act, initiatives to protect sacred sites, and her efforts to address climate change in collaboration with Native communities align with values that Sitting Bull held dear—particularly the protection of land and cultural identity.
Assessment of Donald Trump:
Sitting Bull would likely have viewed Trump’s policies with skepticism, particularly given Trump’s emphasis on energy development on tribal lands and his sometimes dismissive rhetoric regarding Native issues. Trump’s approach to deregulation and economic development might be seen as undermining Native sovereignty and the sanctity of their lands, something Sitting Bull fought against throughout his life.
Quanah Parker
Quanah Parker, a Comanche leader, was known for his pragmatic approach to the survival of his people. After the decline of the traditional Comanche way of life, Parker adapted to the changing world by negotiating for his people's rights within the constraints of U.S. policy, advocating for education, and seeking to maintain cultural practices while also engaging with the broader American economy.
Assessment of Kamala Harris:
Parker might have appreciated Harris's pragmatic approach to supporting Native communities through economic development initiatives like investments in Native entrepreneurs and infrastructure projects. Her recognition of the importance of preserving cultural identity while also promoting economic self-sufficiency would resonate with Parker’s efforts to navigate a changing world while safeguarding his people’s heritage.
Assessment of Donald Trump:
Quanah Parker might have recognized some aspects of Trump’s emphasis on economic opportunity as beneficial, but would likely have been wary of the lack of focus on cultural preservation and the potential threats to Native sovereignty posed by Trump’s policies. Parker’s adaptive and balanced leadership style would likely have found Trump’s approach too dismissive of the complex needs and rights of Native communities.
Overall Perspective
Both Sitting Bull and Quanah Parker would likely find strengths and weaknesses in the leadership of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Harris’s focus on sovereignty, cultural preservation, and environmental stewardship aligns more closely with the values these leaders championed, particularly with Sitting Bull’s unwavering defense of Native lands and rights. Trump’s focus on economic development might resonate with some aspects of Quanah Parker’s adaptive strategies, but his approach could be seen as too narrowly focused and potentially harmful to the broader cultural and sovereign rights of Native peoples. In conclusion, from the perspective of these historic Native leaders, Kamala Harris would likely be viewed as a leader who, while imperfect, shows a stronger alignment with the protection and advancement of Native American rights and values. Trump, on the other hand, might be seen as prioritizing economic growth in ways that could conflict with the essential cultural and sovereignty concerns central to the legacy of leaders like Sitting Bull and Quanah Parker.