Help with an idiom

April 18, 2007 6:10 AM

Is the expression "Too many chiefs, not enough indians" culturally insensitive? If so, help me think of a clever way of expressing the same idea using the same "too many x, not enough y" format.
posted by pasici to writing & language (33 comments total)

Oh, the same format? Too many queens, not enough ants. Too many chiefs, not enough firefighters. Too many leaders, not enough followers.
posted by DU at 6:16 AM on April 18, 2007

It's not exactly enlightened, yeah.

Too many generals, not enough grunts?
Too many engines, not enough cattle cars?
Too many jockeys, not enough horse?
Too many pencils, not enough paper?

You can go pretty much anywhere with that'n, depending on what specifically you're trying to capture in the relationship between the x and the y. Can you provide more detail on the power dynamic in question?
posted by cortex at 6:18 AM on April 18, 2007

i heard that saying for the first time last week. love it! i do not think it is culturally insensitive, you aren't making fun of chiefs or indians...

too many cocks, not enough hens.
too many chefs, not enough ?
too many mods, not enough users.
posted by goldism at 6:18 AM on April 18, 2007

No goldism, it should be too many buckets, not enough cocks.
posted by grouse at 6:21 AM on April 18, 2007

It is not the same format, but a similar sentiment is expressed by "Too many cooks in the kitchen." Although that might offend some professional chefs, I guess!
posted by theredpen at 6:22 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many Chiefs, not enough Native Americans.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 6:26 AM on April 18, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

too many chefs, not enough ?

Too many chefs spoil the broth.
posted by b1tr0t at 6:28 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many Roves, not enough Plames.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 6:28 AM on April 18, 2007

"Too many chefs spoil the broth" doesn't mean the same thing. Literally, what "too many chiefs, not enough Indians" means is, "too many managers, not enough workers".

For what it's worth, I would think twice about using the original phrase, and I'm British, where calling Native Americans "Indians" is fine. Based on that, I'm guessing you're on dangerous ground using the expression in the U.S. Even if it's not offensive, people are going to be distracted by it, which is not what you want your writing to do.

I like "too many generals, not enough grunts".
posted by caek at 6:32 AM on April 18, 2007

I teach Indian history and work with native scholars and I have a hard time imagining any of them being offended. And yet the phrase is nonsensical and encapsulates a historical misunderstanding, since in most native societies tribal or village chiefs ruled by persuasion and consensus. They couldn't actually order another person to do much of anything. I wouldn't use the phrase for that reason.
posted by LarryC at 7:09 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many chefs, not enough stock?
posted by Savannah at 7:19 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many captains, not enough pirates.
Too many shoguns, not enough samurai.
Too many kings, not enough pawns.
Too many directors, not enough actors.
Too many silverbacks, not enough gorillas.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:22 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many [Repressive Majority], not enough [Repressed Minority]
Too many [Racial Slur], not enough [Racial Slur]
Too many questions, not enough answers.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:39 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many captains, not enough sailors.
posted by signal at 7:41 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many cowboys, not enough cattle. Maintains the old west flavor if the original, plus it's pleasantly alliterative.
posted by sonofslim at 7:41 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many MCs, not enough mics
posted by taliaferro at 7:54 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many conductors, not enough musicians
posted by JaredSeth at 7:56 AM on April 18, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think the problem that you run into more-so than a root insensitivity of the phrase is that it's antiquated and evokes an antiquated era (even to someone who is not familiar with the phrase's usage)... So, while people might not find the words themselves offensive, they may make assumptions about your attitudes because of them.

If you're using it instructionally, I'm a fan of "too many queens, not enough ants", mainly because of the slightly negative connotation of "queen" and a fairly neutral "ants". If critically, then "too many generals, not enough grunts" is pretty good. It explains the principle a little more directly and has a certain air of tragedy.
posted by pokermonk at 8:08 AM on April 18, 2007

To many bosses, not enough workers?
posted by mmascolino at 8:20 AM on April 18, 2007

Too...damnit!
posted by mmascolino at 8:31 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many Scotts, not enough Shrutes.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:28 AM on April 18, 2007

If you're using it instructionally, I'm a fan of "too many queens, not enough ants", mainly because of the slightly negative connotation of "queen" and a fairly neutral "ants". If critically, then "too many generals, not enough grunts" is pretty good.

"too many queens, not enough ants" works, but I think something like "too many generals, not enough grunts" is missing the subtlety of the original idiom. The point is not just "too many leaders, not enough followers" because the chiefs are also Indians.
posted by juv3nal at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many original posters, not enough commenters.
posted by itstheclamsname at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2007

1. Yes

2. Too many sheriffs, not enough deputies? Too many pimps, not enough nappy... no, no, not that one. Too many pre-technological tribal patriarchs and/or matriarchs (for many pre-technological societies are/were, of course, matriarchal), not enough ordinary members of the aboriginal culture. Ahh, snappy.
posted by nanojath at 10:13 AM on April 18, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Too many heads, not enough hands.
It's short and sweet and the synecdoche extends its meaning to many fields.
posted by HE Amb. T. S. L. DuVal at 10:17 AM on April 18, 2007

Too many coaches, not enough players.
posted by Dec One at 10:47 AM on April 18, 2007

It's not an offensive phrase. Just ask any Indian.

Also: Too many queens not enough bees.
(Depending on circumstances, of course. You wouldn't want to offend the royalty OR our buzzing, pollinating little friends by suggesting there are too many of too few of any particular caste.)
posted by IronLizard at 11:19 AM on April 18, 2007

I'm 1/32 Cherokee, but only 1/128 offended, if that means anything.

I say too many Buffys, not enough Xanders, but I watch too much TV.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:54 PM on April 18, 2007

Too many concept guys, not enough coders.
posted by spitbull at 1:15 PM on April 18, 2007

How can calling Native Americans "Indians" be insensitive given the name of the National Museum of the American Indian?
posted by TrashyRambo at 4:03 PM on April 18, 2007

I think it's more offensive to whites than Indians. I ran into a family of Bay Mills Indians once, and after we talked for a while, they described themselves as such.

If you're worried about distracting people, stay away from it though. You're going to get some 90's style Political Correctness Nazi who has never even met an Indian up in your face eventually.
posted by zhivota at 4:45 PM on April 18, 2007

Too many chefs.
Not enough cooks.
posted by pointilist at 7:58 PM on April 18, 2007

Too many johns, not enough fluffers.
Too many rangers, not enough hobbits.
Too many Kirks, not enough Scottys.
Too many Walts, not enough lemmings.
Too many Moffs, not enough stormtroopers.
Too many Homers, not enough helper monkeys.
Too many Mavericks, not enough Gooses.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:21 AM on April 20, 2007