Tribal decisions are by consensus between the men and the women past childbearing age;
younger women have a say in everyday affairs;
there is no chief with any formal authority;
by ability and force of personality, one person, in this case Red Fox, dominates, is most respected and is usually able to settle matters.
Red Fox is a leader, not a ruler. All societies have leaders. Not all have rulers.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I see little or no real DISTINCTION, except in degree and formal powers, between "leaders" and "rulers." Also, as a people becomes larger, more populous, and SETTLED, more formal structures will need to be worked out. Which is exactly what happened, later on, among the Indians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is a massive difference. One person who gives a moral lead to others by stepping forward to intervene and prevent an act of cruelty has no guarantee that anyone else will follow his lead. He might be putting his own head on the block whereas a ruler can send others into danger while keeping himself safe.
Paul.
Also, Red Wolf's word USUALLY settles a matter but he has to persuade every time.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first comment is not relevant. Simply because I might stop a cruel man from torturing a dog or even beating up another man, that does not mean I am a "leader." What happened in these hypotheticals was sheerly accidental and will not translated into me into having day to day "leadership."
You can bet that as groups like the Cloud People became tribes, more formal structures will be worked out, including having CHIEFS and Sachems. To say nothing of the elaborate hierarchies we see the city states and kingdoms of the Mesoamericans, Mayans, and Incas creating.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course more formal structures will be worked out but there is still a difference between a leader and a ruler. What I had in mind in the first example was something like this: a group of people, say in a bus queue on a busy street, witness an act of cruelty across the street. They hesitate to intervene for several reasons: busy street; their bus approaches; they don't want to get involved; they don't want to confront the perp without backup. From the queue, one man steps forward. A few follow him. More follow the few. The rest follow the more. Others who were not in the queue join in. Suddenly, the perp has a whole crowd moving toward him. That first man certainly gave a lead/was a leader. And it might be the only time in his life that he gives a lead about anything! Afterwards, he might have the shakes and promise himself never to stick his head above the parapet again. But he gave a lead once. That is human leadership. It happens all the time. Such leaders have no powers to order anyone to do anything yet society moves because of them. With or without rulers, society is full of leaders. It is also called setting an example.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course cases like this has happened, no argument there. I also thought of Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan, who showed kindness and mercy to a victim of robbers after several others had passed by and declined to do anything.
I also thought, more whimsically, of making a play on "rulers" vis a vis "rules." As any society becomes larger and more complex, we see rulers (king, president, parliament, etc.) making rules (or laws). Not always very wise or good laws/rules, alas.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment