Slavery as an industrial system

by H. J. Nieboer

Grinnell enumerates the branches of industry existing among them. “Food supply and defence against enemies depended on the warrior’s weapons. These were his most precious possessions, and he gave much care to their manufacture. Knowing nothing of metals, he made his edge tools of sharpened stones.” [[240]]“The most important part of the warrior’s equipment was the bow, and over no part of it was more time and labour spent.” “The stone axe, the maul, and the lance were all simple weapons.” “A very important part of the warrior’s outfit was the shield, with which he stopped or turned aside the arrows of his enemy. It was usually circular in shape, and was made of the thick, shrunken hide of a buffalo bull’s neck.” “Clothing was made of skins tanned with or without the fur.” “Many tribes—especially those to the south—made a simple pottery.… Among the northern tribes, where pottery was least known, ladles, spoons, bows, and dishes were usually formed from horn or wood”. “The different tribes had but slight knowledge of the textile art, and this knowledge seems to have been greatest in the south and on the coast.” “Three vehicles were known to the primitive Indian—the travois in the south and the sledge in the north for land travel, and the canoe wherever there were water ways.” “The Indian’s ideas of art are rude.” “It is in the art of carving, however, that the greatest skill was shown”[243]. So these tribes do not seem to have attained to a high industrial development; the less, as most of the instances Grinnell gives of their skill in carving relate to tribes of the Pacific Coast.

5º. Property and wealth. Whereas on the Pacific Coast influence and power depend on wealth, we shall see that in Central North America it is otherwise. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, remarks: “Rhetoric controls all these tribes, as the captain is elected for his eloquence alone, and is obeyed in proportion to his use of it, for they have no other law than his word”[244]. Roosevelt states that among the Algonquins the war-chief “wielded only the influence that he could secure by his personal prowess and his tact”[245]. The power of an Ojibway chief depended upon his wisdom, courage, and hospitality[246]. Of the Blackfeet we are told: “Chiefs never receive a gift, considering it a degradation to accept anything but what their own prowess or superior qualities of manhood acquire for them. Their hearts are so good and strong that they scorn to take [[241]]anything, and self-denial and the power to resist temptation to luxury or easily acquired property is a boast with them. On these men, in time of peace, when difficulties occur among themselves, the tribe relies, and in time of war they are their leaders to the scene of action”. And Schoolcraft states that the chiefs “have little or no power, unless they have distinguished themselves as warriors and are supported by a band of braves”[247]. Among the Kutchins, according to Jones, the chiefs are elected for their wisdom and courage. Hardisty, however, states that the power of the chiefs depends on the number of beads they own; for these afford a means of injuring those who displease them. And Whymper remarks: “The chiefs, who are without exception good hunters or fishers, often procure or strengthen their position by periodical distributions of their chattels. They not seldom have the worst clothing and food of all inhabitants”[248]. Among the Cheyennes generally the bravest and wisest man is elected as a chief[249]. Mrs. Eastman tells us of the Sioux, that formerly “their bravest men, their war chief too, no doubt exercized a control over the rest.” The chief lived like the common people and Neill remarks: “The individual who desires to improve his condition is not only laughed at, but maltreated. Moreover, if he acquires any property, there is no law which secures it to him, and it is liable to be taken away at any time by any ill-disposed person”[250]. Among the Apaches, according to Schoolcraft, “the chiefs are the wealthiest men, the most warlike, the first in battle, the wisest in council”. According to Ten Kate the power of the chiefs depends on their success in forays. And Bancroft remarks: “Sometimes it happens that one family retains the chieftaincy in a tribe during several generations, because of the bravery or wealth of the sons”[251]. Comanche chiefs, according to Schoolcraft, “are selected for their known or pretended prowess in war”. In another place he states, that they [[242]]are made chiefs for their “superior cunning, knowledge or success in war”[252].

Influence and power depend thus on bravery, wisdom, eloquence, not on wealth. Only among the Apaches does it depend on wealth, though not on wealth exclusively. The distributions of property among the Kutchins somewhat resemble those on the Pacific Coast, but are not indicative of quite the same development of wealth; for on the Pacific Coast wealth consists to a large extent of more durable goods, such as houses, canoes, etc.

A few other statements also tend to prove, that wealth is not highly developed; the economic life of some tribes shows rather communistic features. Among the Kutchins, “unless he is alone, a hunter cannot take and appropriate the meat of the animal he kills. Should he do so, he would be considered mean. And this feeling is strong. When two good hunters go together, good and well, the one has as good a chance of getting meat as the other; but when one is a bad hunter and the other a good one, the former gets all the meat and the real hunter has nothing, and loses his ammunition into the bargain”[253]. Among the Chepewyans the game is distributed among those who shared in the chase. The game which a man catches in his share is his private property; “nevertheless any unsuccessful hunter passing by may take a deer so caught, leaving the head, skin, and saddle for the owner”[254].

Among the Osages, too, wealth was formerly unknown; for in Hunter’s time the old men disapproved of the fur-trade, which gave abundance and thereby led to effeminacy[255].

6º. Condition of women. Le Jeune states, that among the Montagnais the sex has great influence. Household affairs are left to the discretion of the women, without any male interference. The women “cut and decide and give away as they please”[256]. Ojibway women, according to Jones, do the hardest work, are slaves of the men, get the worst food and the worst place in the wigwam; and Long states, that the wives are the slaves of their husbands. According to Kohl, nearly all [[243]]kinds of work, except the chase, fell to the share of the women, who were even obliged to bring home the bears killed by the men[257]. Mackenzie tells us, that among the Knisteneaux women are in the same subjected condition as among other wild tribes[258]. Among the Blackfeet the husband may send his wife away when he likes; she then takes her property with her; the children remain with the father. Many men have 6 or 8 wives; they readily lend them to whites for brandy[259]. Chepewyan wives are subjected to their husbands, who are very jealous and “for very trifling causes treat them with such cruelty as sometimes to occasion their death”[260]. Among the Kutchins, as we have seen in § 2, the condition of women is a rather bad one[261]. Mackenzie speaks of the “extreme subjection and abasement” of Beaver Indian women[262]. Cheyenne women perform all the drudgery. Yet they have some influence in government matters; they do not attend the councils; but their wishes, privately uttered, are not generally disregarded[263]. Among the Sioux women as children and wives are despised, as girls a little more honoured. And Schoolcraft states that they exercise some influence in tribal matters by expressing their desires at home, but are not admitted to the council[264]. Bancroft, speaking of the Apache family in general (including Apaches, Comanches, and several other tribes), remarks: “Womankind as usual is at a discount. The female child receives little care from its mother, being only of collateral advantage to the tribe. Later she becomes the beast of burden and slave of her husband.” But another statement of the same writer proves that the women’s condition is not so very bad: “The marriage yoke sits lightly; the husband may repudiate his wife and take back the property given for her; the wife may abandon her husband, but by the latter act she covers him with such disgrace that it may only be wiped out by killing somebody—anybody whom he may chance to meet”[265]. The wife may thus with impunity leave her husband, the latter venting his anger upon “somebody”. [[244]]Schoolcraft states that Comanche women are not thought much of, even by themselves; the husband has unlimited sway over his wife[266]. Among the Shoshones, according to Lewis and Clark, “the man is the sole proprietor of his wives and daughters, and can barter them away, or dispose of them in any manner he may think proper.” “The mass of the females are condemned, as among all savage nations, to the lowest and most laborious drudgery”[267].

Now let us inquire what Grinnell, who is so well acquainted with Indian life, has to say about the treatment of women among the Indians in general. “A word or two with regard to the position of the wife in the household may not be out of place here. The Indian woman, it is usually thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations extend, this notion is wholly an erroneous one. It is true that the women were the labourers of the camp, that they did all the hard work about which there was no excitement. They cooked, brought wood and water, dried the meat, dressed the robes, made the clothing, collected the lodge poles, packed the horses, cultivated the ground, and generally performed all the tasks which might be called menial, but they were not mere servants. On the contrary, their position was very respectable. They were consulted on many subjects, not only in connection with family affairs, but in more important and general matters. Sometimes women were even admitted to the councils and spoke there, giving their advice. This privilege was very unusual, and was granted only to women who had performed some deed which was worthy of a man. This in practice meant that she had killed or counted coup on an enemy, or had been to war. In ordinary family conversation women did not hesitate to interrupt and correct their husbands when the latter made statements with which they did not agree, and the men listened to them with respectful attention, though of course this depended on the standing of the woman, her intelligence, etc. While their lives were hard and full of toil, they yet found time to get together for gossip and for gambling, and on the whole managed to take a good deal of pleasure in [[245]]life”[268]. And Ten Kate, a careful observer, remarks that the Indians do not, as has often been asserted, regard woman as a beast of burden and a drudge. Her condition, as compared with that of the women of the lower classes in civilized countries, is rather better than worse[269].

So the lot of the Indian woman is not so hard as at first sight it seems. Yet the fact, that several ethnographers picture it in such dark colours, whereas the describers of the tribes of the Pacific Coast agree, that the sex command great respect, tends to prove, that the condition of women is not quite so good here as on the Pacific Coast.

7º. Militarism. These tribes are very warlike. Roosevelt states that warfare and hunting were the chief occupations of the Algonquins[270]. Among the Ojibways the end of education is to make good hunters and warriors[271]. According to Mackenzie, warfare and hunting, among the Knisteneaux, are the occupations of the men. They are continually engaged in warfare[272]. The Blackfeet were very warlike, and always fighting with their neighbours[273]. Mackenzie tells us, that it was a custom with Chepewyan chiefs “to go to war after they had shed tears in order to wipe away the disgrace attached to such a feminine weakness”[274]. The Beaver Indians were even more warlike than the Chepewyans[275]. Mrs. Eastman calls the Sioux “brave, daring, revengeful”[276]. The Apaches, according to Bancroft, “are in their industries extremely active,—their industries being theft and murder, to which they are trained by their mothers, and in which they display consummate cunning, treachery, and cruelty”[277]. And the same writer tells us that “the Comanches, who are better warriors than the Apaches, highly honour bravery on the battle-field. From early youth, they are taught the art of war, and the skilful handling of their horses and weapons; and they are not allowed a seat in the council, until their name is garnished by some heroic deed”[278]. [[246]]

We see that the Indians of Central North America present a strongly marked contrast with such tribes as the Koniagas who are “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting” and the Chinooks who “were always a commercial rather than a warlike people”. Therefore all available men are wanted in warfare; they cannot afford to have male slaves living among them, who do not share in their military operations. They are very much in need of warriors, and little of labourers. Accordingly among many of these tribes such prisoners of war as are allowed to live, are adopted into the tribe or into some family within the tribe[279].