Slavery as an industrial system

by H. J. Nieboer

This need not, however, be the only cause; for women here enjoy a rather high position; so it might be that the men wish to alleviate the task of their wives, quite apart from the occupation of the latter in preparing the articles of commerce. Aleuts, if not addicted to drinking, are good husbands, and help their wives in everything[148]. Among the Tlinkits, according to Krause, “woman’s position is not a bad one. She is not the [[220]]slave of her husband; she has determinate rights, and her influence is considerable”; and Bancroft remarks that “there are few savage nations, in which the sex have greater influence or command greater respect”[149]. Nootka wives “seem to be nearly on terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded from some public feasts and ceremonies”[150]; and Sproat tells us that among the Ahts slaves only are prostituted; women are not badly treated; a wife may leave her husband with the consent of her relatives[151]. Among the Koniagas, according to Holmberg, the women did not hold a subordinate place as among other savage tribes of North America, but enjoyed high consideration[152]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon, according to Gibbs, “the condition of the woman is that of slavery under any circumstances.” But the particulars he gives prove that the women here are not so very badly off. In their councils “the women are present at, and join in the deliberations, speaking in a low tone, their words being repeated aloud by a reporter. On occasions of less ceremony, they sometimes address the audience without any such intervention, and give their admonitions with a freedom of tongue highly edifying. In a few instances, matrons of superior character, “strong minded women”, have obtained an influence similar to that of chiefs.” The men own property distinct from their wives. “He has his own blankets, she her mats and baskets, and generally speaking her earnings belong to her, except those arising from prostitution, which are her husband’s.” Sometimes “the courtship commences in this way—the girl wishing a husband, and taking a straightforward mode of attracting one.” “The accession of a new wife in the lodge very naturally produces jealousy and discord, and the first often returns for a time in dudgeon to her friends, to be reclaimed by her husband when he chooses, perhaps after propitiating her by some present”[153]. Yet the condition of women seems not to be quite as good as among the other tribes. “A man sends his wife away, or sells her at his will.” “An Indian, perhaps, will not let his favourite wife, but he looks upon his others, his sisters, daughters, [[221]]female relatives, and slaves, as a legitimate source of profit”[154]. But we must take into consideration, that Gibbs gives a general description of inland tribes and coast tribes together. That among the latter the condition of women is not so very bad, is proved by Bancroft’s statements about the tribes on Puget Sound and Chinooks. About Puget Sound “women have all the work to do except hunting and fishing, while their lords spend their time in idleness and gambling. Still the females are not ill-treated; they acquire great influence in the tribe”[155]. And among the Chinooks “work is equally divided between the sexes.… Their [women’s] condition is by no means a hard one. It is among tribes that live by the chase or by other means in which women can be of little service, that we find the sex most oppressed and cruelly treated”[156]. This statement is strengthened by Swan writing that “with these Indians the position of the women is not so degraded as with the tribes of the Plains”[157]. The Tacullies “are fond of their wives, performing the most of the household drudgery in order to relieve them”[158]. Mackenzie, speaking of an Indian tribe, probably related to the Atnahs on Fraser River, amongst whom strangers are kept “in a state of awe and subjection,” states that they live upon the products of the sea and rivers and are to be considered as a “stationary people.” “Hence it is that the men engage in those toilsome employments, which the tribes who support themselves by the chase leave entirely to the women”[159].

Our information, here again, is not very complete; but as far as it goes it tends to prove that the condition of women on the Pacific Coast is not a bad one.

This good condition of women here, as compared with for instance that of Australian women, may for a great part be due to the settled life of these tribes. While the men are on fishing, hunting, or trading expeditions, the women enjoy much liberty; whereas Australian women are continually marching along with their husbands[160]. The men must also be aware [[222]]that domestic comfort, worth much in these cold regions, depends on the women. As militarism does not prevail here to any great extent, women are not so much in need of male protection. And village life makes conspiracy of women possible. So among the Aleuts “a religious festival used to be held in December, at which all the women of the village assembled by moonlight, and danced naked with masked faces, the men being excluded under penalty of death”[161]. Last but not least, subsistence here is largely dependent on female labour. Lewis and Clark remark: “Where the women can aid in procuring subsistence for the tribe, they are treated with more equality, and their importance is proportioned to the share which they take in that labour; while in countries where subsistence is chiefly procured by the exertions of the men, the women are considered and treated as burdens. Thus, among the Clatsops and Chinnooks, who live upon fish and roots, which the women are equally expert with the men in procuring, the former have a rank and influence very rarely found among Indians. The females are permitted to speak freely before the men, to whom indeed they sometimes address themselves in a tone of authority. On many subjects their judgments and opinions are respected, and in matters of trade, their advice is generally asked and pursued. The labours of the family too, are shared almost equally”[162].

We have only enumerated some causes tending to bring about a good condition of women. It is not the place here to expatiate upon this point any further. But it is worth while to emphasize the fact itself, that women are on the whole well treated among these tribes. A German writer, Dr. Grosse, has tried to prove, that among the “higher hunters” (höhere Jäger) as well as among the “lower hunters” (niedere Jäger) [[223]]woman’s state is a bad one. As all our tribes belong to Grosse’s “higher hunters”[163], we shall attempt to find out, why his conclusion is so different from ours. He quotes several ethnographical statements, which are to afford a basis for his inference[164]. We shall examine whether this is a sound basis. Grosse does not always exactly specify which tribe each quotation applies to; but as he most frequently quotes Bancroft, we can easily find it out. He first quotes this statement of Bancroft’s about the Shoshones: “The weaker sex of course do the hardest labour, and receive more blows than kind words for their pains”[165]. But the very next sentence: “These people, in common with most nomadic nations, have the barbarous custom of abandoning the old and infirm the moment they find them an incumbrance,” shows that these Shoshones are not at all to be compared to the Tlinkits and similar tribes; their mode of life is decidedly rude and little comfortable. Then he refers to some passages of Bancroft’s, proving that unfaithfulness of the wife is punished with death, whereas the husband has the right to prostitute his wife to strangers. These passages apply to the Southern and Northern Californians as well as to the Shoshones. But about the former it is also stated: “If a man ill-treated his wife, her relations took her away, after paying back the value of her wedding presents, and then married her to another”[166]. And of the Northern Californians we are told: “Among the Modocs polygamy prevails, and the women have considerable privilege. The Hoopa adulterer loses one eye, the adulteress is exempt from punishment”[167]. Moreover, “although the principal labour falls to the lot of the women, the men sometimes assist in building the wigwam, or even in gathering acorns and roots”[168]. Another statement of Bancroft’s, quoted by Grosse, applies to the Chepewyans: “The Northern Indian is master of his household. He marries without ceremony, and divorces his wife at his pleasure. A man of forty buys or fights for a spouse of twelve, and when tired of her whips her and sends her away”[169]. This statement is corroborated by a report of Hearne’s. But why Grosse calls [[224]]the Chepewyans “higher hunters” we do not understand. “Altogether they are pronounced an inferior race”. “The Chepewyans inhabit huts of brush and portable skin tents”. “Their weapons and their utensils are of the most primitive kind”[170]. The next quotation applies to the Kutchins, whose wives “are treated more like dogs than human beings”. But this is only stated of the Tenan Kutchin, “people of the mountains,” “a wild, ungovernable horde, their territory never yet having been invaded by white people”. “The Kutcha Kutchin, “people of the lowland,” are cleaner and better mannered”. And of these “better mannered” Kutchins Bancroft says: “The women perform all domestic duties, and eat after the husband is satisfied; but the men paddle the boats, and have even been known to carry their wives ashore, so that they might not wet their feet”[171]. As for the Nootkas, women being “somewhat overworked” (Grosse does not mention that among the richer class most female work is done by slaves), and excluded from some public feasts, Grosse concludes that their state is a bad one. We have quoted above some facts tending to prove the contrary. Then Grosse asserts that, according to Bancroft, Haida husbands prostitute their wives for money. Bancroft, however, says literally: “While jealousy is not entirely unknown, chastity appears to be so, as women who can earn the greatest number of blankets win great admiration for themselves and high position for their husbands”[172]; which is not exactly the same. The Tlinkits, according to Grosse, are the only unaccountable exception to his general rule. Finally he attempts to prove, that the alleged supremacy of women in Kamchatka does not signify so very much; but that Kamchadale women are badly treated, even he does not assert.

What remains now of Grosse’s evidence? Tlinkit and Kamchadale women he himself admits not to be badly off. What he says of Nootkas and Haidas proves very little. About the Northern and Southern Californians we have got statements that impair Grosse’s argument very much. Only among the Shoshones, Chepewyans, and Tenan Kutchin is the state of women decidedly bad; but these are not on a level with the [[225]]other tribes; they are migratory and little advanced in the arts of life. And of the Tenan Kutchin we know very little, “their territory never yet having been invaded by white people”[173].

Grosse derives most of his evidence from Bancroft’s book; but he evidently has not paid attention to all the data given by Bancroft, which relate to the condition of women. Sometimes he quotes one sentence, where two successive sentences taken together would give quite another view of the matter. Several statements of Bancroft’s (such as about the tribes on Puget Sound, Chinooks, Tacullies) he omits altogether; whereas just the tribes of the N. W. Coast of North America are, according to him, among the most typical “higher hunters”[174]. And he can only give a semblance of truth to his inference by classifying under “higher hunters” Shoshones and similar tribes, which are not more advanced in the arts of life than some Australians, and decidedly much less than the Eskimos and Aleuts whom he calls “lower hunters”.

Returning to our chief subject, we may remark, that our survey of slave labour leads to the same conclusion we arrived at before, viz. that the preserving of food, a settled life, and the high development of trade, industry and wealth, are the main causes which have made slavery so largely prevalent here. As additional causes we may now name the high position of women, which induces the men to relieve them of a part of their work by giving them the help of slaves; and, in a few cases, the want of fighting men, who are to strengthen their masters’ force in warfare.

We shall now briefly examine, which are the causes of slavery among the slave-keeping hunters and fishers outside the Pacific Coast.

Among the Abipones the function of slavery was beyond any doubt reinforcement of the tribe. The slaves were very leniently treated. “I know of many people” says Dobrizhoffer, “who, being released by their friends and brought back to their native country, voluntarily returned to their masters, the [[226]]Abipones, whom they follow in their hunting and fighting expeditions; though Spaniards themselves, they do not hesitate to stain their hands with Spanish blood.” “The liberty to go where they like, the abundance of food and clothing procured without any labour, the possession of many horses, the freedom to idle and run into debauchery, the lawless impunity they enjoy, bind the Spanish captives so much to the Abipones, that they prefer their captivity to liberty”. “The Abipones, though considering polygamy allowed, very seldom take several wives at a time; the captives do not often content themselves with one wife, but marry as many female prisoners, Spanish or Indian, as they can”[175].

The reason for taking prisoners here was the same as among the Iroquois and similar tribes, where they were adopted; with this sole difference, that the Abipones seem to have had a sexual aversion (that cannot be accounted for here) to all men and women outside their own nation; therefore they did not adopt their prisoners, nor had they any sexual intercourse with them. Slavery as a system of labour did not exist here.