6º. Condition of women. Though not quite so bad as in Australia, woman’s condition is not so good here as among the Indians of the Pacific Coast. Greenland women lead a hard and almost slave-like life, says Crantz[308]. And Bancroft tells us that among the Eskimos of Alaska “the lot of the women is but little better than slavery”[309]. The principal cause of this [[252]]difference perhaps is, that female labour among the Eskimos is not productive. In Greenland “a man who has two wives is not despised; on the contrary he is looked upon as an able provider”[310]. This proves that subsistence depends upon male, not as in Australia upon female labour. Among the Central Eskimos “the principal part of the man’s work is to provide for his family.… The woman has to do the household work, the sewing, and the cooking”[311]. Among the Western Eskimos “polygamy is common, every man being entitled to as many wives, as he can get and maintain”[312]. So the man maintains the family; female labour, however useful, is not so indispensable as male. The men know this quite well. In Greenland “the man hunts and fishes, and having brought the animals ashore he pays no more attention to them; it would even be a disgrace for him to carry the captured seal on land”[313]. This is quite another state of things than what we have seen to exist on the Pacific Coast, where female labour, especially in the preparation of articles of commerce, is highly valued.
7º. Militarism. Among the Greenlanders warfare is unknown[314]. Boas, speaking of the Central Eskimos, says: “Real wars or fights between settlements, I believe, have never happened, but contests have always been confined to single families”[315]. In Alaska it is otherwise, for “the Northern Indians are frequently at war with the Eskimos and Southern Indians, for whom they at all times entertain the most inveterate hatred”[316]. This absence of militarism enables the Greenlanders and Central Eskimos to have men performing women’s work living among them, as we have seen in § 1 of this chapter[317].
So the Eskimos, like the slave-keeping Indians of the Pacific Coast, are accomplished fishers, have fixed habitations, are industrially highly developed, and generally not warlike. On the other hand there is no abundance of food, wealth does not exist, and woman’s condition is not nearly so good as on the Pacific Coast. Also in the size of their groups, the preserving of food, and the development of trade, they are decidedly [[253]]inferior to the slave-keeping tribes of the N. W. Coast of North America.
The principal cause why the Eskimos do not keep slaves evidently is the difficulty with which food is procured. We have seen that female labour, being unproductive, is little valued. Male labour only is indispensable, and this is labour of high quality. Navigating in the kyak is a matter of much skill. Crantz tells us that Europeans who tried it, could move about a little in very calm weather; but they were not able to fish while being in the kyak, nor to save themselves when the least danger occurred. This requires peculiar skill, and Eskimos take several years to learn it. There are indeed men unable to capture seals; they are much despised[318]. Bancroft also states that considerable skill is required in taking seals[319], and Boas describes at great length the ingenious methods used in seal, walrus, and whale hunting[320]. Unskilled labour is not wanted; and widows and orphans who have lost their bread-winner may be glad if any one is willing to receive them into his house[321].
Sometimes an Eskimo wants labour. In Greenland a married couple having no children at all or no full-grown children, adopt male and female children whom they treat as their own; the adopted son is considered the future head of the family[322]. Among the Central Eskimos too, as to the right of inheritance “an elder adopted son has a preference over a younger son born of the marriage”[323]. Thus we see that a normally constituted family is self-dependent. If there are no children, their place has to be supplied by strangers; boys have to perform the same highly skilled labour as the father, and girls to help the mother in her work that, though less valued, has also to be done. But a further increase of the family by slaves performing menial work is not wanted; the man, if able, would not be willing to maintain them. The only kind of work indispensable here cannot be imposed upon slaves; and the cost of maintaining slaves performing other [[254]]work would be greater than the profit they would yield. Food is not preserved in such large quantities as on the Pacific Coast; shell-fish and vegetable food are almost entirely unknown here; nor is any fish, oil, etc. prepared for commercial purposes.
There is one more cause at work among the Eskimos, preventing the existence of slavery: the dependence of labour upon capital. Boas, describing the Central Eskimos, states that among the adopted people “who may almost be considered servants” there are “men who have lost their sledges and dogs.” Such servants “fulfil minor occupations, mend the hunting implements, fit out the sledges, feed the dogs, etc.; sometimes, however, they join the hunters. They follow the master of the house when he removes from one place to another, make journeys in order to do his commissions, and so on”[324]. And Crantz tells us that among the Greenlanders many boys are neglected in their youth, as the providing of them with kyak and implements is very costly[325]. Among the Indians of the Pacific Coast the possession of capital gives great advantage; thus among the Makah the owner of the canoe receives a proportionate share of the booty from the crew[326]; but it is not indispensable. Here it is. A man destitute of capital cannot provide for himself, and is therefore at the mercy of the capitalist. Now the Eskimo capitalist most often allows such men to share his house and food, and makes them feed the dogs, etc. rather as means of procuring employment for them, than because such work requires hands outside the family. The capitalist does not want labourers; but even if he did, there would always be widows and orphans, and men destitute of capital, who would readily enter into his service. The Eskimos have to struggle with “unemployment” difficulties, not with scarcity of hands; therefore a slave-dealer visiting them would not find a ready sale for his stock-in-trade. [[255]]
§ 6. Conclusion.
We shall sum up here the conclusions to which the foregoing paragraphs have led us.
1º. Hunters hardly ever keep slaves; and when they do slavery is of little moment. But among fishers slavery often, though by no means always, exists: of the two large groups of fishing tribes one (the Indians on the Pacific Coast of North America) keeps slaves, the other (the Eskimos) does not.