War Chief Republicans or Reservation Chief Republicans?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the coming election and what people on the Right will do depending on the outcome. If President Trump wins, will they go back to the failed strategy of trying to compromise with the Left even though we would finally have the power to restore America? And if Trump loses, will they slide back into the role of playing lackeys—giving away the keys to the national house?

At the same time, I keep returning back to a single thought: which Republicans will be war chiefs and which will be reservation chiefs?

What is a war chief and what is a reservation chief? People who don’t live west of the Mississippi as I do may be unfamiliar with the distinction. As a rule, war chiefs were American Indians who refused to submit to displaced from their tribal lands—whether by other Amerindians or by Americans. The war chief chose war and its attendant ills over submission. 

The reservation chiefs, often without being prompted, sold off tribal lands that were not theirs to sell for cheap trinkets: beads, whiskey, and buttons rather than risking conflict.

When I think of the reservation chiefs, I think of those who sold Manhattan to the Dutch for $24 worth of beads, or men like John Ross or Elias Boudinot who just accepted the idea that their people, the Cherokee, should passively submit to being removed from the Southeast to Oklahoma. I think of the Chiefs Black Kettle and Little Raven who bowed their heads and passively submitted to being removed to reservations chosen not by them but for them. I’m sure many of these men thought that what they were doing on behalf of their people was necessary, even praiseworthy.

When I think of the war chiefs, I think of those proud American Indians who fought back against their displacement, who refused to give up their traditions, who attacked despite overwhelming odds. 

When I think of war chiefs, I think of Metacom, the Wampanoag chief who realized the folly of his father’s accommodation with the Puritans. Even though it was too late, he still fought the fight to retain his ancestral lands. I think of Tecumseh, the Shawnee Chief who spent his life trying to unite the tribes of the Old Northwest to eject the invasion of my equally courageous and brave ancestors who were displacing them in their lands. I think of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse who, though they were ultimately doomed, resisted their dispossession and land loss rather than be a party to it.

What was the difference between the reservation and war chiefs? Maybe the former thought their lands were going to be taken anyway, right? Why not get the best deal possible if defeat is inevitable? Why submit to the indignity, the pain, the suffering, and loss if the material results are the same—or perhaps even worse? (And they often were.)

The answer is in the immaterial value of resistance.

There is a reason Crazy Horse, and not Elias Boudinot, is the subject of a massive stone monument dedicated to his memory. There is a reason children in the public schools, especially American Indian children, know who Tecumseh is; and it is the same reason they probably have never heard of Little Raven. Because what Crazy Horse and Tecumseh bequeathed was a gift to their descendants: the gift of knowing that the pride was unbroken, the gift of knowing that they knew how valuable their patrimony was and that they were willing to go to great lengths to defend it and pass that pride on to their descendants.

This immaterial principle of a psychological and emotional patrimony, an inheritance of pride is why Texans praise and know the names of the heroes of the Alamo like Davy Crockett and not the leader of the massacred prisoners of Goliad. It is why young Israelis know who Eleazar ben Ya’ir was and not the names of those who collaborated with the Romans in the destruction of Judea. I could go on, but these people, these other various examples like the Amerindian War Chiefs are the ones who—even in defeat—won a victory for their causes and their posterity.

How can we quantify the value of this gift to posterity? We can’t.

But I can tell you, how we speak of Republican leaders in decades to come—even if we are defeated and submerged by the globalist “march of history”—will in large part depend on whether or not they choose to be War Chief Republicans or Reservation Chief Republicans. On every issue.

The Left has made it very clear what they want to do with us and our patrimony. They want to abolish the family. They want to swamp our nation with third-world colonists regardless of our desires, making them citizens as soon as possible, so that they can rule this country permanently. They openly state their plan is to keep their governing coalition united by demonizing white men, describing them as super oppressors in terms of wealth, income, and status. They openly state it is their goal to target and destroy the history, monuments, and memories of these super oppressors and have been carrying it out with zeal. They want to continue the process of outsourcing our jobs. They will do nothing to stop the importation of drugs into this country because this would require them to secure the border; and so tens of thousands more Americans will die from drug overdoses—the progress of which has been halted for now by the Trump Administration.

Will Republicans be Reservation Chief Republicans, selling our patrimony cheaply—the patrimony that belongs to all American citizens: whether they be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or agnostic—for the cheap Chinese trinkets of globalization? Will they be Reservation Chief Republicans, allowing the MEET Complex—that body of leftist occupied institutions: Media, Entertainment, Education, and Tech—to continue to poison the American mind and soul in exchange for profit and sordid programming?

Or will they be War Chief Republicans? Will they tell the truth and fire back at their opponents—even if they are called sexists, or racists, or homophobes? Will they fight for the right of Americans to have decent paying work and dignity—even if their opponents call them nativists and bigots for it? Will they put American First, even though our illegitimate globalist elites bare their teeth at them?

Will they settle for the poor wages of compromise like Black Kettle? Or will they refuse to compromise with those who wish to destroy us and make us strangers in our own country and fight politically, even to the end, like Tecumseh? That’s the question of our day.

About Hezekiah Kantor

Hezekiah Kantor is a pseudonym for an American high school teacher and coach with a B.A. from an Ivy League University and an M.A. in teaching from a Jesuit college on the West Coast. A teacher of the year in his first school district, he holds a National Board Certificate for Adult and Youth Social Studies. He has an interest in politics, religion, economics, and military history. His 2019 book, Trojan Horse Religion explains in detail the beliefs and practices of the Progressive Liberal religion and describes how Progressive Liberalism aims to be the State Church.

Photo: Werbeantrieb/Getty Images

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.