All nomadic tribes were divided into communities, just as the settled ones were divided into separate villages. Each was led by a leader. Sometimes he was elected by council, and sometimes a small group separated from the community, to which, if it was led by an influential person, other families gradually joined. If the leader for one reason or another lost authority, the followers left him, and the community ceased to exist. Despite the assertions of some authors, the Indians did not have hereditary chiefs, although in practice the son did often take the place of the father. The explanation for this is very banal, but has nothing to do with the inheritance of the position. As mentioned above, the community was formed around a successful leader, who, in turn, was supported by family and friends. A poor man could not be a leader and, accordingly, his son originally belonged to a rich family and enjoyed the support of this family and its friends. Being the son of a leader, he was constantly aware of the affairs of the community and could learn from his father the wisdom of leadership. But if his character did not have the traits necessary for a leader, the path to the position of leader was closed to him.

Leader

How did people become leaders?

How people became chiefs is clearly seen from the term they were called by the Crow, Batsetse, which means Good Man or Worthy Husband. The Comanches, when asked how a man became a leader, answered: "No one elected him, he simply became him." John Bradbury wrote in 1811 of the Arikars and some other tribes he met: “Generosity and generosity, and rather even indifference to oneself, are the qualities necessary for a leader. The desire to obtain or possess more than others is considered a passion unworthy of a brave man. Therefore, it often happens that the leader is the poorest person among them. And although the last statement is not entirely true, in general, Bradbury managed to notice some of the basic qualities necessary for the leadership of freedom-loving redskins. Courage was a very important quality for being elected leader. No Indian would follow a cowardly leader, no matter how rich and generous he might be. According to the Sioux White Calf, before a man was elected chief, he had to prove himself in many battles and in peace. The Shoshone said that only a brave man who killed several enemies could become their paramount leader. In the old days, the Shoshone said, the chief carried a stick wrapped in otter fur and bent at the end in the form of a hook, with which he caught fleeing enemies and threw them from the horse. This statement hardly speaks of the obligatory attribute of the Shoshone leader, but is only an echo of a certain military act of one of them. Among the Crows, only a person who proved himself on the warpath and committed one of the four deeds - leading a successful military detachment, stealing a horse from enemy tents, the first "ku" on the enemy and snatching a bow or gun from the hands of the enemy could become the leader of the community. People who had one of the above merits on their account were the elite of the tribe and made up the community council. The leader of the Crow community was not the ruler of his people and did not have much power. He only decided when and where his community would go, and appointed one of the military societies to carry out police functions in the camp.

Paramount Chiefs of the Indian Communities and Other Members of the Council of Chiefs

The tribe, which consisted of communities, was ruled either by a paramount chief or by a council of chiefs. For example, the Blackfoot confederation - the Piegans, the Sixks, and the Bloods - had supreme leaders, but all important issues were decided on a council, in which representatives of all tribe communities participated. A very unusual tribal government structure for the Plains existed among the Cheyenne. All important tribal problems were decided by a council of 44 chiefs, which included 4 paramount chiefs and 4 chiefs from each of the 10 communities. The paramount chiefs had equal rights and authority, while the remaining 40 were more of advisors whose authority extended only to their communities. Nevertheless, their position commanded respect, and people listened to them. It cannot be said that the paramount chiefs had more power than other members of the council of chiefs, but due to their status and human qualities that allowed them to take this post, their opinion was listened to with more attention than the opinion of advisers. Leaders were elected for a ten-year term, after which they could be re-elected again. Any of the four supreme leaders after 10 years could name a successor, who sometimes became his son. The choice of the leader was an important matter, and it was preceded by serious discussions. A person had to be brave, honest, generous, wise, prudent, calm, etc. The obligations of the leader were severe enough, and many rejected the offer to take this honorary post. If the leader at least once showed himself not from the best side (for example, quarreled with someone, even if he was insulted), he lost his post. The Hikariya Apaches, on the contrary, did not have tribal leaders, each community had its own, and only after settling on the reservation did it begin to act as a single tribe. The Comanche also had no paramount chief or council of chiefs acting on behalf of all their tribes.

Peaceful and military leaders

The statements about the division into peaceful and military leaders are also not entirely true, which can be clearly seen in the example of the Blackfoot. Clarke Wissler wrote: "Some authors claim that the Blackfoot appointed two chiefs, a peace chief and a war chief, but we have been unable to find any evidence of this, except for the fact that the leaders of some communities were famous military leaders, whose services were used in critical times." Despite popular belief, the Indians of the Plains did not have the institution of permanent war chiefs. A person was such only for the duration of a military campaign and only for the soldiers who were in the detachment. After returning to the camp, he resigned and became an ordinary community member. Therefore, in this work, the leaders of military expeditions are called leaders of military detachments, which more accurately reflects their status.

Paper and authoritative leaders

Having begun to establish relationships with warlike nomad tribes, the US government was faced with the problem of the lack of centralized authority. Often only part of the tribe came to sign the treaties, and the communities that did not attend the treaty council refused to comply with its terms, rightly pointing out that the leaders of other communities do not have the authority to make decisions for them. Especially many of these problems arose with the numerous Sioux and Comanches. As a result, the government began to systematically impose the institution of supreme leaders on the tribes, appointing to these positions people whose circle of influence, as a rule, extended only to a handful of friends and relatives. The Indians called them paper chiefs. It was not until the 1870s that people began to be appointed who really enjoyed great authority among their fellow tribesmen - for example, Red Cloud among the Oglala Sioux and Spotted Tail among the Brule Sioux. But even in these cases, people who were dissatisfied with the policies of these leaders left them and joined other leaders - such as Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull, who did not want to live on reservations. Only after the complete defeat of the hostile Indians and their settlements on the reservation did the paper leaders gain real power over their fellow tribesmen.

According to Yu.V. Stukalina

The theory of chiefs began for me with reasoning about why it was customary to call Grandpa Joe a chief. Who is the leader? The leader is the head of the tribal tribe (chiefdom) among ancient people. The leader was responsible for all members of the family (community), he made decisions on all emerging issues. Since ancient times, the leaders did not have any privileges in the tribe, they were not supposed to have any gifts and offerings. The leaders began to use their status for their own enrichment later. This is due to the invasion of the life of the tribes of "civilized" conquerors. Imagine - I arrived in America and I see before me a strong, close-knit, friendly, original tribe of Indians. Their wigwams are located on an oil-bearing place, so my task is to get them to leave there. The first thought is to kill everyone, but it is very costly. Even Julius Caesar wrote in his diaries that it was pointless to fight the barbarians. A people not corrupted by civilization cannot be enslaved. Barbarians do not know money, believe in their gods, are loyal to their leader and fight for the land on which they have been living for many years. The only way to defeat them is to cut out the entire family of the leader and corrupt the remaining people. (Agree, it reminds of Dulles' plan) Corrupting a tribe with a living leader will not work, because. a wise ruler will always stand guard over the old tribal orders and severely punish any dissent that has penetrated the tribe from the outside. By removing the old leader, it will be possible to install a new one - already corrupted. It is important to kill the entire family of the leader, because. all the traditions and basics of tribal management are passed on from the father-leader to the son. Let's just say that the title of chief has always been hereditary. From childhood, a child learned from his father what a real leader should be like. It was fixed genetically. After the destruction of the “ruling family”, it is worth choosing a young guy as a new henchman: inexperienced, little familiar with traditions, ambitious and, if possible, greedy. It is with such leaders that offerings, privileges, chic thrones, excesses in clothing, monuments, palaces, taxes begin ... In short, the construction of civilization begins with such leaders. Instead of leaders appear kings, kings, monarchs, emperors, presidents...

It is worth mentioning that I put a certain sacred meaning into the word “leader” itself. Of course, I understand that the words "leader", "sovereign" or "monarch" are the same thing, but I would single out the "leader" separately. In my understanding, "leader" is the same as "wise ruler", "true sovereign" or something like that. All this is a dialectic, which has no special significance for us.

And so... Who is the real leader? This is a person who combines three main qualities: 1) be able to make decisions independently; 2) not pursue their own interests; 3) bear personal responsibility for the decisions made. It is these "three whales" that distinguish the leader from all other rulers. Now let's sort it out in order.

First whale- be able to make decisions. What does it mean? To reveal the meaning of these words, I offer you a thought experiment: you are in an empty room; there are two buttons on the table in front of you: red and green; if you press the red button, then overnight on earth 100 million people will die, including you, but a cure for all diseases will be invented; if you press green, then everything will remain the same, and you will leave the room unharmed; the option not to press any of the buttons is not allowed. In the context of this task, I will give definitions of the terms I need: “to work out the right decision” means to decide which button would be more profitable (more useful, more efficient) to press from the point of view of mathematics, logic, religion, or those principles that guide you in life; “apply the developed solution” means to press one of the buttons; To “doubt” means to regret, to worry, to be tormented by the thought that, perhaps, it would be better to press another button until the end of one’s life. So, “to be able to make decisions” means to be able to make decisions, apply them and never doubt. Doubt is a terrible worm that can one day settle in a person's heart and undermine it throughout life. Doubt is like an endless toothache. Doubt can equally easily destroy both strong faith and strong love. However, it is necessary to correctly understand the words "never doubt." This does not mean that after making a decision, you should never think about what you did again. The rule of "no doubt" does not cancel autoreflection. (Autoreflection is a person's ability to mentally return to perfect actions and rethink them, reevaluate them. Reflection (feedback) is the basis of all types of effective management.) I will give an example from history. Two outstanding generals took part in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78: Mikhail Dmitrievich Skobelev and Alexei Nikolaevich Kuropatkin.

Skobelev was a military officer, distinguished by incredible courage and firmness. He often made spontaneous decisions leading to stunning victories. It can be said that he improvised in battle. The “White General” knew how to make decisions quickly in a combat situation and boldly rushed into battle. Kuropatkin, on the other hand, was a military analyst. He sat at the headquarters and developed the strategic plans of the Russian army. His carefully prepared operations led to unconditional victories for our troops. Later, in 1904, the Russo-Japanese War broke out. Skobelev had already died by that time, and it was necessary to appoint the commander of the Russian army. Kuropatkin was chosen for this position for his outstanding services. The problem was that Alexei Nikolaevich was more of a military strategist than a commander. He knew how to "work out decisions", but not to accept them. The general constantly doubted, was afraid of responsibility. In the end, because of his indecision, the war on land was ugly lost. (A similar story happened in 1812, when the command of the army was transferred from the hands of the overly cautious Barclay de Tolly to the decisive Kutuzov.)

Second whale- Do not pursue your own interests. I have already touched on this issue. The leader never tries to get more benefits out of the tribe for himself. He is one with his chiefdom and does not exalt himself in any way. A perfect example is the captain of a sinking ship. He is always concerned that all his passengers are saved. The captain thinks about his life in the last place, and more often he remains to die with the ship, thereby taking responsibility for the crash. I thought for a long time about a word that would characterize a person who, like a leader, is capable of making decisions and leading people, but at the same time pursuing only his own interests. I found it, the word is "leader". It would seem that the words "leader" and "leader" are identical: "leader" - from the ancient Slavic "lead", "lead"; "leader" - from the English "lead" [in the lane. "news"]. Well, I admit, sometimes I myself lost the boundary between these concepts, until I came up with a suitable phrase that explains the meaning of the word “leader”. This phrase is “leader of the race”. Think - who is the leader of the race? This is a person who competes with other people in order to win victory in some duel. He wants to win, to be the best, to get gold, to beat everyone else - the leader pursues only his own goals. The leaders are called the first: the first person of the state is the leader of the party, the first in the race is also the leader, the best student is the leader of the class. If the captain of the ship is the leader, then he will be the first to be in the lifeboat in the event of a crash - he is used to leading in everything, and here he will not miss his chance to become the first to escape. I am sure that if you conduct a survey of citizens "Do you want to be a leader or a leader?", the majority will answer - "leader." Some personal perspectives are seen in the "leader". The egoist living inside us hears something sweet in this word, and from the “leader” it breathes some musty dark past. Rethinking the original word “lead”, I draw the following conclusion: the leader leads to where it will be better than his tribe (shines a lantern in front), and the leader leads to where he himself needs (the tribe drags his things and provisions from behind). Looking at Putin, I understand that he is a true leader...

Third whale- take personal responsibility. If the person who made the decision is not responsible, then no one is responsible. The leader of the tribe has no advisers. He is the top and only rung of the political hierarchy of the ancient community. He makes all decisions himself and takes responsibility. When there are a lot of ministries in the government, and the powers of the president are intricately intertwined with the parliamentary system, it becomes an almost impossible task to determine who is to blame for this or that issue. Responsibility is actively dissolved in the team. But back to the leaders. There were such tribes in which the priests actually ruled. The term “priest” will become clearer for us if we write it in the form of the familiar phraseological unit “gray cardinal”. Richelieu and similar "priests" were talented managers, so why didn't they take the actual place of "leaders"? It's all about responsibility. “Yes - I can make decisions, yes - I don’t even pursue my own interests, but no - I’m afraid of responsibility. Let them cut off the head of old Louis.” Standing in the shadows and whispering in your ear is calmer than going out to the people and saying that taxes will have to be increased. Such is the fate of a leader.

In the modern world, perhaps, there are no more tribes left, but there are still "leaders". Previously, civilization was the enemy of chiefdoms, now it has become democracy: either the conquistadors mercilessly killed the Indians, or NATO is bombing Libya. However, leaders are not only leaders of states. Recall that the basis of the tribe is the clan, the family. For a family to be strong and strong, a man in it must be a leader. There are also female leaders, but this is already some strange trend of our time. The leader is not a title, not a rank and not a position. Leaders are born.

Probably, the adventure novels of Fenimore Cooper and films about the conquest of the Wild West became the reason that in our minds the expression "tribal leader" is strongly associated with the Indians of the American continent. However, the concept is much broader. Let's figure out together what it means.

Who is the leader?

To answer this question, it is necessary to return to the distant past of human civilization, at a time that historians call the primitive communal system. It was then, or rather, during the period of its decomposition, that leaders first appeared who took over the leadership of the life of the tribe in peacetime or wartime. Unlike the elders of the clan, the leaders were elected, so their personal qualities and authority played a paramount role.

With the complication of the hierarchical structure, the duties and functions of such leaders expanded, and the position itself turned from an elective into a hereditary one. Thus, the process of formation of the first state formations of antiquity took place, headed by the descendants of former leaders, whose power by that time had already acquired an authoritarian and sacred character.

Almost all peoples in their development have passed this stage. Indeed, the Scandinavians, Germans, Slavs and other ancient tribes had leaders. Some of them entered the annals of history, for example, the leader of the Huns - the ruthless Attila.

When the Europeans discovered America, the social structure of the local tribes was at a stage that the peoples of the Old World had long since passed. Who is the leader of the Indians? This is, first of all, a brave man, wise and possessing qualities that lead the scale of values ​​of this tribe.

Modern leaders

It would be wrong to think that leaders existed only among the ancient peoples. Today tribal communities of natives of Africa or America are also headed by leaders. However, this word has other meanings in the modern world.

Leaderism as a type of relations in the state and politics received a special development in the 20th century. It is typical for countries with a totalitarian or authoritarian form of government, regardless of their dominant ideology. It is enough to remember Hitler, Trotsky, Mussolini, Mao Zedong to understand who the leader is in the modern view.

Documentary film

"Forgotten Leaders" is the name of a cycle of documentaries filmed by the Star Media group of companies. The tapes tell about the most significant figures in the party leadership of the Soviet Union in the period from 1917 to the death of IV Stalin. In total, seven films shot in the documentary drama genre were released. They include biographies:

• Lavrenty Beria.
• Felix Dzerzhinsky.
• Viktor Abakumov.
• Seeds of Budyonny.
• Kliment Voroshilov.
• Andrey Zhdanov.

The creators of the Forgotten Leaders project set themselves the goal not so much to convey to the audience the well-known facts from the biography of the heroes, but to tell about what each of them did for the state, being in the abyss of historical upheavals. The audience thinks they did it well.

So, summing up the topic "who is the leader", we repeat that this term is not a tribute to the past. On the contrary, it is actively used in modern society.

The list clearly states that they did not return from a combat mission. Possibly killed. And perhaps not. In similar documents, the wording "did not return from a combat mission" is the same independent category as "killed" or "died of a broken heart."

So where did the three brave pilots go - Nikolai Zavirokhin, Grigory Bezobrazov and Ivan Datsenko? There is no information about Zavirokhin and Bezobrazov, but Ivan Datsenko, the pilot of that bomber, turned out to be a famous person in his homeland. And not only at home.

He was born in the Poltava region, near Dikanka, in the village of Chernechiy Yar on November 29, 1918. He had a brother, Vasily, and a sister, Daria. Their father was often sick, and the children grew up very independent, because their mother was lost early. Ivan studied well and graduated from the veterinary technical school after school. In 1937 he was drafted into the army. In those years, preparations were in full swing for a big war, from which few were destined to return. A cadre of competent officers was required. Ivan and his brother ended up in the Chkalovsky flight school in Orenburg. By the beginning of the war, both were very experienced pilots. Vasily flew fighters, and in 1943 he died in an air battle. Ivan ended up in bomber aircraft, the losses of which in military operations are always orders of magnitude less than in other branches of the military. Not because the pilots avoid combat, but because the bomber is flying at high altitude, often at night, and suffers relatively little from gunfire.

Ivan, however, has proven himself to be an experienced pilot with nerves of steel. He was sent several times behind the front line to bombard objects deep behind German lines. According to the documents, it turns out that in 1942 he bombed Koenigsberg, Tilsit, Brest several times. He bombed the German troops in the Stalingrad cauldron. In the summer of 1942, he and his crew bombed the German airfield near Orel. The plane was riddled with German return fire, Datsenko's leg was crushed, but he brought the burning car to the front line so that the guys had time to jump over their territory. And only after the crew jumped out, he jumped himself.

So he fully deserved the title of Hero of the Soviet Union received on September 18, 1943. 213 sorties is not a pound of raisins for you. But Datsenko also had awards, in addition to the Golden Star to the title of Hero, - the Order of the Red Banner of War, the Order of Lenin, the medal "For the Defense of Stalingrad". The crew of Ivan Datsenko did something extremely important in the war. For simple bombing, such orders were not given.

In April 1944, the same night raid on the railway junction near Lvov followed, from which Datsenko's crew did not return. Fellow soldiers wrote to Ivan's mother and sister that they did not believe in his death, the pilot was too experienced ... After the war, a marble plaque was installed in Datsenko's native village. The local pioneer squad was named after him. A memorial museum was organized in the village in his memory. They wanted to rename one of the village streets in his honor. But this did not work out - the district authorities prevented it. Without any explanation. As we know how - no need, that's all. Inappropriate.

The family had no doubts that Ivan died heroically. The common people are generally unsophisticated and trusting. It never occurred to anyone to request any documents about the deceased brother and son from the Ministry of Defense. But in vain. Because there are surprisingly few documents about the Hero of the Soviet Union Ivan Datsenko. All papers related to him were taken away by the NKVD from his unit a week after that night raid. However, if the family had found out about this, it would have brought nothing but unnecessary worries.

In 1967, in Canada, near Montreal, a grandiose exhibition "Expo-67" took place. Now it's hard to imagine what it was like, and the pavilions of this exhibition are still used in Montreal. An artificial island was built on the St. Lawrence River for the construction of the exhibition site. 28 million tons of rock were laid in the channel. The exhibition was visited by the leaders of many countries, a huge number of guests of various ranks, celebrities, specialists and, of course, intelligence officers. Because, as the GRU officer Viktor Suvorov formulated in his brilliant book “Aquarium”, not a single exhibition on the planet, whether it be a book fair or a goldfish competition, takes place without the knights of the cloak and dagger visiting it.

The Soviet Union demonstrated the achievements of cosmonautics at that exhibition, but in addition, many Soviet dance groups, musical ensembles and artists came to the exhibition. And now one of them, the famous Chechen dancer Makhmud Esambaev, performed the Fire Dance in front of Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson. Pearson was shocked and wanted to thank the artist for the delivered aesthetic pleasure. Esambaev asked Pearson if it would be extremely interesting for him, as a dancer, to look at the real dances of the American Indians. The prime minister organized a trip for the Soviet delegation to the Iroquois Indian Reservation, which is located south of Montreal in the province of Ontario, and partly in the United States.

The Indians entertained the Soviet guests for a long time with their dances and colorful outfits, and then a tall Indian leader in full dress and with a traditional headdress of eagle feathers approached Esambaev. His name was Penetrating Fire, Penetrating Fire. Esambaev, who, like all Soviet citizens at that time, was not taught languages, tried to say something in broken English. And in response, he heard in the affectionately melodious Ukrainian: “Healthy boules! Kindly ask to my wigwam! The dumbfounded Esambaev began to ask the leader how he could know Ukrainian, to which the leader replied that he himself was from the Poltava region, his name was Ivan Datsenko, that, behold, his father-in-law, the leader of the tribe, had died, and he was married to the leader’s daughter, the children them ... His Indian wife came out, she also spoke Ukrainian, the leader ordered his wife to serve dumplings and vodka, sat down, drank ... Then the leader Ivan suggested that Mahmud sing, he became shy, and to the general final stun of the Soviet delegation, the leader, his wife, their children and a couple of Indians thundered "Unharness, lads, horses ...". Ivan sang and cried. Then Esambaev began to ask him if he wanted to go home to Ukraine. “On the kolins bi povz,” answered the leader Penetrating Fire, “she can’t be less ...”

Subsequently, they corresponded. Esambaev sent Ivan photographs of his village and home. Ivan answered “brother Mahmud” that he had built exactly the same house on the reservation, put up a wattle fence, and planted a sunflower. In the photographs brought by Esambaev, Daria Datsenko immediately recognized her brother. Not returning from a mission on April 19, 1944 ...

Shortly after meeting with Esambaev, the Soviet ambassador to Canada, comrade Shpedko, also visited the leader of Piercing Fire. In those years, the Soviet ambassador in a bourgeois country, without a special sanction from the leadership and without crossing himself in the KGB at least 55 times, did not have the right to meet with any of the local residents, and even more so from the former Red Army soldiers who went missing in 1944 near Lvov. And if such a meeting took place, then the ambassador was well prepared for it. To drive from Ottawa to the reservation on the St. Lawrence River, one had to spend three to four hours one way. And not to every compatriot who finds himself behind the cordon, the ambassador will go. The ambassador is accustomed to communicating with prime ministers... And the conversation took place, apparently, not easy. Although Ivan Fadeevich Shpedko himself simply tells how he and the leader Ivan had a good drink of vodka during the meeting. This is where his story ends. What the ambassador was actually talking to the erring bomber pilot about remained a mystery.

All correspondence between Esambaev and the leader of the Iroquois tribe allegedly burned down during the storming of Grozny in the 90s. Esambaev himself in the last years of his life generally refused to talk about this topic. Daria Datsenko was informed in 2002 by the Ukrainian Red Cross that Chief Piercing Fire had died. She never met his wife or his children.

Vladimir Semyonov, who worked as an adviser to the Soviet embassy in Canada in 1967, wrote later that Ivan Datsenko jumped out of a burning plane and was taken prisoner by the Germans. Then he was in the American zone of occupation, and from there, with a stream of refugees, he ended up in Canada. In Canada, he worked near the reservation, met an Indian woman. He was 27 years old, a tall strong guy liked the girl. She was the daughter of the chief of the tribe. Well, then ... Semyonov then made inquiries about Datsenko from a Canadian senator of Indian origin, and managed to find out that, indeed, a white foreigner was taken into the tribe as a tourism manager; the tribe entrusted him to be a "false leader" at various ceremonial events and shows that took place on the reservation. And he was married to the daughter of a real leader.

Despite the apparent natural simplicity, there are many objections to this version.
In 1944, the Germans would not have captured a Soviet pilot from a bomber alive. After the devastating bombardment of Germany by the Allies, the bomber pilots who fell into their hands were executed immediately, and often with a painful death.

It is not at all easy to become an Indian and get into a tribe. Of course, in our time, Canadian law will not allow anyone to drag an eagle's paw under the skin of a test subject, and nevertheless, the Indians live in a closed way, and white people are distrustful and often unfriendly. And even more unlikely to achieve that you, a white foreigner, were elected leader. Something is wrong here too. The version of the "tourism manager", set out by Semyonov, is closer to the truth.

Why did the Soviet ambassador visit the leader? And why didn’t Datsenko, if it was only him, try to establish contact with his sister at least already in the 90s, while he was still alive?

Where did the bomber fly on a misty night on April 19, 1944, without a radio operator on board, with three desperate Soviet officers who had already carried out secret orders more than once?

Why in 1967 "it was impossible to go back" to the Hero of the Soviet Union? After all, no one deprived him of his title and awards, that is, there were no complaints against him through the secret services and Soviet justice.

There are more questions than answers. Perhaps something will become clearer when the archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian secret services become more accessible. Although, as one smart person said, there were many such operations that will remain secret for all eternity. One thing is clear - this is not the last story about the brave lad from near Poltava and the odyssey of his life.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 2

✪ Stalin's jokes. How did the leader joke?

✪ 🏔 LEADER CHERVONOSHKIRIKH (O. Henry) 💰AUDIOBOOK Ukrainian mine

Subtitles

Story

To designate men who enjoy great authority and influence and are actually the leaders of their communities in ethnographic Anglo-Saxon literature uses the term "bigman" [ ] . The status of big men was not inherited at first, but then in certain related groups there was a tendency to monopolize big men. However, rivalry between individual bigmen (often between sons of the same father) and the resulting segmentation of clans made such kindred groups unstable.

But if, in principle, anyone could become a big man, then only a person who belonged to a certain narrow circle, entry into which was determined by origin, could become a leader. Only the hereditary transfer of power of the leader could provide a reliable transfer of leadership experience in a non-literate society and ensured that the new holder of power would be endowed with charisma. Hereditary leadership was already known at the stage of the early primitive community (for example, among some of the Aborigines Australians and the Bushmen), but rather as an exception. Then inheritance of power became the rule.

At first, neither the big men nor the leaders exploited their fellow tribesmen. But then they began to use their status for their own enrichment. For example, among the Melanesians, when Europeans met them, the leaders, as a rule, did not receive any offerings, but, knowing the wealth of the communities, they widely used them for their own enrichment. Among the Maori, the leaders already received "gifts" from ordinary community members, and their land plots were larger than those of other community members. In Fiji, the chiefs tried to claim the landed property of the communities. On the islands of Tonga, all land was considered the property of the leaders, and ordinary community members carried compulsory duties in their favor and, under the threat of death, they were forbidden to move from one landowner to another. This is how feudal relations developed.

Such leaders are commonly referred to in literature as tribal nobility or tribal aristocracy. The power of the leaders was especially great when they were both military and (or) religious leaders (priests). In the first case, they had military squads at their disposal, in the second, religion as a means of ideological and psychological influence.

Military leaders could come from the environment of both tribal nobility and famous commoner warriors. With the increase in the frequency of wars during the period of the disintegration of the tribal system, military leaders often pushed other leaders into the background or completely forced them out. For example, among the Iroquois Indians in the 18th century, two traditional military leaders from the Seneca tribe became the main ones from secondary leaders.

Less commonly, communities were led by priests, but very often the leaders also appropriated religious functions, thereby sanctifying and sacralizing their power. In many societies, it was believed that the leaders have supernatural grace and are the link between the higher powers and the common people.

At first, chiefs headed only one community, but then there appeared chiefs who headed chiefdoms that united several communities. Power in a chiefdom could be both aristocratic and military; often it was sacralized (the so-called sacred leaders and chiefdoms), a striking example of which are the pre-state formations of Polynesia and Tropical Africa.

Leaders at the head of states have been known since ancient times. State and party leadership received special development after the First World War in totalitarian and authoritarian countries with different ideologies and political organizations - primarily in socialist and fascist ones (the words Fuhrer and Duce mean "leader").

Expressions such as "Leaders of Marxism", "Leaders of Nazism", "Leaders of Social Democracy", "Leaders of Democracy" and the like have become widespread in political and fiction literature. But these expressions did not become scientific terms.