4 ms·

""(in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter)"" AFAIK absolutely f

""(in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter)"" AFAIK absolutely false. It is also a gross generalization about a diverse group of people with differing sociopolitical structures. I would suggest reading "Empire of the Summer Moon" for an example of a famous and incredibly egalitarian American construct, or just read about Iroquois political structures via Googling, for two examples. http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=939760&vsl=0001 http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=939760... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
omg, secret political correctness police, please go away!
- psycr 13y ago
  Whiddershins' comment has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather with actual historical correctness. The comment is polite, sincere, and provides a further source of information for those who seek it.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    sure it is.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    actual historical correctness This is silly and trivial. Two reasons: [1] The phrase is the analog of an idiom. It is shorthand for "hierarchy" and used as such. The parent is explaining its use. [2] There are many tribal organizations. This cuts both ways. Provided there is a single one that was historically rank-hierachical, the data is not even a counterfactual. [3] Provided [2] is ok, so is [1]. We know [2] is ok. Hence, the comment is logically ~gratuitous. See, for example: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs+and+not+enough+indians.html http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs...
    - kibibu 13y ago
      Besides, my Grandma used to say it all the time! I'm bringing it back! --- I don't think the correct response when called out the use of a racist stereotype is to claim it's silly and trivial.
da02 13y ago
Thanks for pointing that out for those curious about organizations and history. The more I learn about history, the more I am reminded of the phrase: "It's complicated."
soneca 13y ago
We have the exact same saying in Brazil and our native tribes are very different from north american ones. I am pretty sure this is just an analogy, using the terms everybody knows ("chief" and "indians") to explain whatever environment where are too many people giving orders and too few following them (aka working). Not related in any way to actual organizations of any actual tribes.
andrewflnr 13y ago
Perhaps a better illustration would be "too many captains and not enough sailors." I understand ships are much more strongly and consistently hierarchical. We already use nautical analogies for businesses, anyway.
evacuationdrill 13y ago
That type of saying doesn't always mean there should be one person at the top, just that the balance is off. Most people know that there are more than one chef in the kitchen, yet we still figuratively say there are too many.
levosmetalo 13y ago
In my country we use a phrase, roughly translated as: "Many midwives, tepid child". Sorry, we didn't have Indians to kill and them make a mockery out of them ;)

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

omg, secret political correctness police, please go away!

psycr 13y ago
Whiddershins' comment has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather with actual historical correctness. The comment is polite, sincere, and provides a further source of information for those who seek it.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  sure it is.
- 001sky 13y ago
  actual historical correctness This is silly and trivial. Two reasons: [1] The phrase is the analog of an idiom. It is shorthand for "hierarchy" and used as such. The parent is explaining its use. [2] There are many tribal organizations. This cuts both ways. Provided there is a single one that was historically rank-hierachical, the data is not even a counterfactual. [3] Provided [2] is ok, so is [1]. We know [2] is ok. Hence, the comment is logically ~gratuitous. See, for example: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs+and+not+enough+indians.html http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/too+many+chiefs...
  - kibibu 13y ago
    Besides, my Grandma used to say it all the time! I'm bringing it back! --- I don't think the correct response when called out the use of a racist stereotype is to claim it's silly and trivial.

da02 13y ago

Thanks for pointing that out for those curious about organizations and history. The more I learn about history, the more I am reminded of the phrase: "It's complicated."

soneca 13y ago

We have the exact same saying in Brazil and our native tribes are very different from north american ones. I am pretty sure this is just an analogy, using the terms everybody knows ("chief" and "indians") to explain whatever environment where are too many people giving orders and too few following them (aka working). Not related in any way to actual organizations of any actual tribes.

andrewflnr 13y ago

Perhaps a better illustration would be "too many captains and not enough sailors." I understand ships are much more strongly and consistently hierarchical. We already use nautical analogies for businesses, anyway.

evacuationdrill 13y ago

That type of saying doesn't always mean there should be one person at the top, just that the balance is off. Most people know that there are more than one chef in the kitchen, yet we still figuratively say there are too many.

levosmetalo 13y ago

In my country we use a phrase, roughly translated as: "Many midwives, tepid child". Sorry, we didn't have Indians to kill and them make a mockery out of them ;)