Slavery as an industrial system

by H. J. Nieboer

In Tasmania the husband could divorce his wife; but she could also force him to do so.

d. Exchange of wives does not seem always to take place against their will. In W. Victoria wives may be exchanged only after the death of their parents and with the consent of the chiefs, but not if one of them has children. After the exchange both couples live peacefully together in one hut, each in a separate compartment. If a man knows that his wife is in love with another, and he is not opposed to it, she can be amicably transferred to the other man with the consent of the chief. At Port Lincoln the men frequently exchange wives; brothers and near relatives have their wives nearly in common. The wife calls the brothers of her husband by the name [[21]]of husbands. This seems rather a kind of group-marriage than a bartering of wives as of commodities.

These two instances point to the possibility that in other cases too exchange of wives may be not so arbitrary an action as at first sight it seems.

As to the lending of wives, in some cases it appears that these offer themselves to strangers. In N. S. Wales the husband “is quite ready to bargain with a white man, and with her consent too; for a black woman considers it an honour to be thus courted by a man of a superior race”. The Cammarray women prostitute themselves to Europeans for almost nothing, and among themselves without any shame. In Central Australia marriage does not impose any obligation of chastity; the wives always prostitute themselves. In S. Australia women give themselves to strangers with or without the consent of their husbands. On Moore River the wives often have connections with young men; the husbands do not seem to take much notice of it. Moreover, Spencer and Gillen warn us, that “in many cases in which apparently women are lent (in the sense in which we use the word, which is the sense in which it is generally used in this connection) indiscriminately, a knowledge of details would show that this was not so.… In the nine tribes examined by us we have found that intercourse of this nature is strictly regulated by custom”.

e. The levirate law sometimes appears in the character of a duty rather than a right of the deceased man’s brother. Fraser (describing N. S. Wales) calls it a “refuge” for the widow. Dawson, speaking of the aborigines of W. Victoria, states: “When a married man dies, his brother is bound to marry the widow if she has a family, as it is his duty to protect her and rear his brother’s children”. Salvado speaks of the philanthropy of the S. W. Australian, who takes upon himself the care of the wife of an absent friend or parent, or of a brother’s widow.

C. Among the Kurnai the man must hunt for the sustenance of his wife and children, and fight for their protection. In Central Australia the women “have, as amongst other savage tribes, to do a considerable part, but by no means all, of the work of the camp, but, after all, in a good season this does [[22]]not amount to very much, and in a bad season men and women suffer alike, and of what food there is they get their share”. The last-cited cases of levirate law, too, show that the subsistence of the family does not depend on the wife only. Even the instances quoted under C (p. 15) provide us with evidence that the men perform some kind of work as hunting the larger animals, making weapons and fishing-nets, getting fire by friction, etc. And what is said here about the Kurnai certainly applies to all these tribes: the husband fights to protect his wife. This being his great and indispensable function, we must not wonder at his not liking to do other work that women can perform as well[23].

The division of labour between the sexes is not always so unreasonable as at first sight it seems. Hore, speaking of the African Wajiji, very justly remarks: “Much has been said about the unfair division of labour in such circumstances, but when it is considered that a wild man finds scarcely anything to his hand, but must himself cut the wood and the grass to build his house, manufacture his spear and cooking vessels, take his part in tribal duties, and is frequently compelled to seek food in long and laborious hunting expeditions, it will be seen that he often gets his fair share of work”[24]. A similar division of labour is admirably described by Pinart, as existing among the Indians of Panama: “I may be allowed to make here a short digression on woman’s place in the Indian household. [[23]]It is commonly said by those who have not lived intimately with the Indians, that they consider woman as a beast of burden, that to her share falls a life full of troublesome and fatiguing work, and to the man’s an easy and idle existence. It may, indeed, seem strange to the superficial observer to see the woman charged with heavy burdens and the man walking before her carrying nothing but his weapons. But if the observer will only reflect a little, he will understand that, whereas the man carries his weapons only, the responsibility and the safety of his wife and children are incumbent on him. The Indian’s life is indeed surrounded with dangers; when traversing a savannah, or forest, a hostile Indian may appear at any moment; a tiger, a snake etc. may throw himself upon the travellers. Therefore it is the man’s task to be continually on the alert, to have his hands and his movements free, in order to be able immediately to take his arms and defend those who are dear to him. How often have not I seen the Indian, when about to traverse a river, making his family stand still, entering into the water and reconnoitring whether it was not too deep or the stream too rapid; then inspecting the opposite bank to see whether all was right there; then crossing the river again, helping his wife and children to pass through, often even carrying the burdens, and several times re-crossing the river to transport on his back his wife and children. The river being crossed, the man again takes the lead with his arms, the wife and family resume their burdens, and the little caravan continues its way in the same order”[25].

Another fact, proving that the Australian women are not in every respect regarded as slaves, is the great influence they often have in intertribal matters. “The peace-making influence of the women is very great, and has often been observed among many tribes”. “The peace-making function of the women is also very characteristically shown by their being employed as international ambassadresses”[26]. Darwin justly remarks: “We thus see that with savages the women are not in quite so abject a state in relation to marriage, as has often been supposed”[27]. [[24]]

The question to be settled now is this: Are these Australian wives, and accordingly all the wives that live in an abject state, to be called slaves? Remembering the conclusion we arrived at in the third paragraph, we may put the question thus: are they objects of possession? Under B, a, we have quoted several statements of ethnographers calling them the slaves, or the property, of their husbands. We must not, however, forget Ingram’s warning against taking a rhetorical use of the word “slave” too literally. The facts recorded under B, c, B, d, and C are of more interest to us. The husband may do with his wife as he likes: ill-use and kill her, overtax her with work, exchange and lend her. It is but seldom that her relations protect her; in but very few cases is the man’s power interfered with by the chief or elders of the tribe. Therefore we cannot but admit that she is the property of her husband.

Yet there is a reason, why we are not to bring these wives under the denomination of slaves. We may refer here to the point of view we have taken in determining the nature of slavery. Slavery is an organ in the social body, that in a peculiar manner brings about a division of labour. The Australian wives share the character of this organ as an object of possession. Yet they are not the same organ; for besides being forced labourers they are wives; hence it follows that their relation towards their husbands is wholly bound up with the sexual and family life: it is their character as women, not as labourers, that prevails. We may remember here the mutual affection observed in so many cases by the ethnographers. As the mother of his children, too, the husband is likely to value his wife. We have seen (under B, c) that in a few cases she cannot be divorced or exchanged if she has children. Besides, it is frequently stated, that the Australian aborigines are very fond of their children[28].