If there were slaves, i.e. male slaves, for slavery proper does not exist where all slaves are women, they would have to perform either the same work as free men, or the same work as free women. One might object, that sometimes slaves have separate kinds of labour assigned to them, which are performed by slaves only. This is true; but when slaves were first kept it must have been otherwise. It is not to be supposed that men, convinced of the utility of some new kind of work, began to procure slaves in order to make them perform this work; or that, finding some work tedious, they invented slavery to relieve themselves of this burden. Modern psychology does not account for psychical and social phenomena in such a rationalistic way[9]. Differentiation of slave labour from free labour cannot have existed in the first stage of slavery. Therefore two problems are to be solved: 1º. why are there no slaves performing men’s work? 2º. why are there no slaves performing women’s work?
Men’s work, besides warfare, is hunting. Now hunting is never a drudgery, but always a noble and agreeable work. Occupying the whole soul and leaving no room for distracting thought; offering the hunter a definite aim, to which he can reach by one mighty effort of strength and skill; uncertain in its results like a battle, and promising the glory of victory over a living creature; elevating the whole person, in a word intoxicating; it agrees very well with the impulsiveness of savage character[10]. Therefore it is not a work fit to be imposed upon men who are deprived of the common rights of freemen and are the property of others.
For, first, good hunters are highly respected. This appears from several statements. Ottawa women respected a man if he was a good hunter[11]. Tasmanian fathers took care to give their [[196]]daughters to the best hunters[12]. Among the Dumagas (a Negrito tribe) a man who wishes to marry must show his skill in shooting[13]. Ojibway parents tried to give their daughters to good hunters. If the husband was lazy the wife had a right to leave him[14]. In Western Victoria “if a chief is a man of ability, exhibiting bravery in battle or skill in hunting, he is often presented with wives from other chiefs”[15]. Among the Andaman Islanders social status is dependent “on skill in hunting, fishing etc. and on a reputation for generosity and hospitality”[16]. Le Jeune tells us of a Montagnais, who was laughed at because he was a bad hunter. This was a great disgrace among the savages; for such men could never find or keep a wife[17]. A describer of Kamchatka says of the dangerous sea-lion hunting: “This chase is so honourable, that he who has killed most sea-lions is considered a hero; therefore many men engage in it, less for the sake of the meat, that is looked upon as a delicacy, than in order to win renown”[18]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon “a hunter is, in fact, looked upon with respect by almost every tribe in the district”[19]. An ancient describer of the Indians of Paraguay tells us that skill and bravery were the only qualities they valued. A would-be son-in-law had to bring game to the hut of the girl’s parents. “From the kind and the quantity of the game the parents judge whether he is a brave man and deserves to marry their daughter”[20]. Among the Northern Athabascans “none but a successful hunter need aspire to the hand of a chief’s daughter”[21]. Among the Attakapas, if a young man aspired to the hand of a girl, her father asked him whether he was a brave warrior and a good hunter and well acquainted with the art of making harpoons[22]. Even among the pastoral Colonial Hottentots those who had killed a savage animal were highly respected by their countrymen[23]. Personal qualities, among such tribes, are the only cause of social differentiation. Wealth does not yet exist[24]; and hereditary nobility is unknown. So a good hunter cannot [[197]]be regarded by public opinion as a slave, the more so as a good hunter is also a good warrior, and without the aid of public opinion the master is not able to keep him subjected. And a bad hunter would be of little use as a hunting slave[25].
This prevents the growth of intratribal slavery: no member of the tribe is so superior to any other member, that he can reduce him to a state of complete subjection; except perhaps where the latter is physically or psychically much weaker; and then he would not be of any use as a hunting slave. But it also prevents extratribal slavery. Enemies are hated, but not despised. In Central North America prisoners are either killed or adopted, and in the latter case entirely considered and treated as members of the tribe. Sometimes a captive is spared for his bravery; he is then provided with all necessaries and dismissed to his home[26]. Even those who are intended to be killed, are in the meantime treated with all due honours, sometimes even provided with wives[27]. Enemies, at least full-grown men, if allowed to live, are on a footing of equality with the tribesmen; another state of things is not yet thought possible[28].
But even if the idea of subjecting tribesmen or enemies had entered the minds of these hunters, hunting slaves would not be of any use. For hunting requires the utmost application of [[198]]strength and skill; therefore a compulsory hunting system cannot exist. If a man is to exert all his faculties to the utmost, there must be other motives than mere compulsion. It is for the same reason that in countries where manufactures are highly developed, a system of labour other than slavery is required. “It remains certain” Stuart Mill remarks “that slavery is incompatible with any high state of the arts of life, and any great efficiency of labour. For all products which require much skill, slave countries are usually dependent on foreigners.… All processes carried on by slave labour are conducted in the rudest and most unimproved manner”[29]. And Cairnes says that the slave is “unsuited for all branches of industry which require the slightest care, forethought, or dexterity. He cannot be made to co-operate with machinery; he can only be trusted with the coarsest implements; he is incapable of all but the rudest forms of labour”[30]. Mr. Kruijt, describing the natives of Central Celebes, speaks in the same way: “The free Alifur works as hard as his slave and even harder; for during the hours that there is nothing to do in the gardens, the freeman has to mend the furniture, plait baskets, and cut handles from wood or horn etc., all which work the slave does not understand”[31]. And Schurtz, in his most valuable essay on African industry, remarks: “Slavery has little to do with the development of industry. Among the Negroes of Africa only free people spend most of their time in industrial pursuits, the slaves performing at most subordinate functions. In the Soudan there are slaves who work on their own account and pay only a tribute to their master; but it scarcely ever happens that slaves are made to work in large numbers for the purpose of manufacturing goods. Those artisans who belong to pariah tribes are despised, but are not slaves, and the unwritten law defends them from arbitrary treatment”[32]. A freeman may give his whole mind to his work, because he knows he will enjoy the fruits of it, and still more because he will win a reputation by it among his fellow-men. The slave has not these motives; [[199]]he works mainly on compulsion[33]. And as both hunting and higher industrial labour require much personal application, neither can be well performed by slaves. Here extremes meet, if hunting and manufactures are to be considered as extremes, which we are inclined to doubt, at least regarding those tribes that have brought the art of hunting to a high perfection; such hunting probably supposes more development of cerebral power than the lowest stage of agriculture[34]. But there is a difference between hunting and manufacturing nations. In manufacturing countries, besides the higher kinds of labour, there are also many sorts of ruder work to be done, that can be done by slaves as well. Moreover, slavery among a manufacturing nation may date from a former period and have passed into the laws and customs; then social life is based upon it; and so it remains for a long time after its economic basis has fallen. Slavery in such cases, by a gradual mitigation, is made to agree with changed economic conditions: the slave is given a proportionate share in the produce of his labour; he is allowed to buy his freedom by means of his savings; or his obligations are restricted to fixed tributes and services, and so the slave becomes a serf[35]. But the Australians and other hunting tribes have not probably ever done anything but hunting; and so neither present wants induce them to make slaves, nor do the traditions of the past maintain slavery[36]. We may add, that supervision of the work of a hunting slave would be nearly impossible. An agricultural slave can work in the presence of and surveyed by his master; but hunting requires rather independent action.
So slaves cannot be employed in hunting. They might, however, be set to do women’s work, i.e. “erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making baskets for cooking roots and other [[200]]purposes, preparing food, and attending to the children”[37]. But, first, nomadic life and the requirements of the work would, in this case too, very much facilitate the escape of the slave, the more so, as the slaves, when the men are engaged in hunting, would be under the supervision of the women only. Moreover, the men are not likely to take the pains of procuring slaves for the sole benefit of their wives. We must also take into consideration, that these small tribes are very much in need of the forces of every man in hunting and still more in warfare; therefore an able-bodied boy will be brought up to be a hunter and warrior, rather than given to the women as a slave. And finally, where war is frequent, such slaves, not being able to fight, would soon be eliminated in the struggle for life, whereas women are often spared because they are women[38]. Therefore it is only among tribes which either live in peaceful surroundings, or are so powerful as not to have to fear their neighbours very much, that men performing women’s work are to be found. Crantz speaks of a young Greenlander who was unable to navigate, because when a child he had been taken too much care of by his mother. “This man was employed by other Greenlanders like a maid-servant, performing all female labour, in which he excelled”[39]. Among the Central Eskimos, according to Boas, “cripples who are unable to hunt do the same kind of work as women”[40]. Tanner tells us of an Ojibway, who behaved entirely as a woman, and was kept as a wife by another Ojibway. He excelled in female labour, which he had performed all his life. Such men, according to Tanner, are found among all Indian tribes; they are called agokwa[41]. But in all these cases the men who perform female labour are not slaves. Crantz’s young Greenlander probably was glad to earn his livelihood in this way. Domestic labour among the Greenlanders is not generally wanted. Widows and orphans are sometimes taken as servants; but this is done rather as a favour; [[201]]for else they would have to starve[42]. Among the Central Eskimos only those who are unable to hunt do the same work as women; a man able to hunt will never be compelled to do female work. And the men of Tanner’s narrative are entirely treated as women and somehow perform the sexual functions of wives; the performing of domestic labour only would not probably be sufficient for them to get their subsistence[43]. Only where either peaceful surroundings or a fighting power much superior to that of the neighbours makes the existence of men performing female labour possible, and where at the same time female labour is so much valued that the more labourers can be got to do it the better, can there be male slaves performing women’s work[44]. Whether these requirements are fulfilled in any of our positive cases, will appear from our investigation of these cases.
The non-existence of slavery among most hunters and fishers now being accounted for, we shall proceed to an inquiry into the causes of the existence of slavery among 18 hunting and fishing tribes.
§ 2. The slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America.
Going on to account for our 18 positive cases, we may remark in the first place, that what we have said about the causes preventing the existence of slavery, applies much more to hunters than to fishers. Fishers are not necessarily so nomadic as hunters; and where a sedentary life prevails, there is more domestic work to be done, and the slaves cannot so easily escape. Moreover it is not so very difficult to control a fishing slave, who is in the same boat with the master. The slave may also be used to row the boat. Therefore it may be of some use to inquire, how many hunting and how many fishing tribes [[202]]are to be found among our positive and negative cases. Fishing in our sense includes the killing of water-animals besides fish: whales, seals, etc. Where a tribe lives by hunting and fishing, we shall call it a hunting or a fishing tribe, according to the predominating mode of subsistence.