The reason that underlies such neglect of the sick and infirm has, on the other hand, resulted in the prevention of intra-tribal homicide. If the survival of the unfit is not to be desired, the existence of the fit is to be encouraged by all possible means. On the whole, although sick people are neglected, I do not think that they are often destroyed. Frequently a sick Indian has appealed to me, “Oh! let me die,” but none has ever said, “Kill me!” Intra-tribal homicide is certainly prohibited by custom, otherwise homicide is only limited by fear of reprisal, a more effective combination than any police force or criminal code. Even as punishment for an admitted offence, homicide within the tribe is not tolerated, for if a man die it means the loss of a warrior, an injury to tribal strength, a matter not to be lightly risked where the battle is only to the strong. There is, however, one exception to this, and that is in the case of theft. Living as these peoples do an absolutely public life, theft becomes of necessity a capital crime. The loser, if he can catch the thief, will kill him by knocking him down by a blow on the legs with the iron-wood sword, and then hacking off his head. This retribution is considered perfectly justifiable by the tribe, and is indeed sanctioned by custom.
After a murder has been committed it is the sacred duty of some brother or near relative of the dead to kill the murderer, or, if not, at least a relative of his, in accordance with the world-old idea of an eye for an eye. A man who refused to revenge a murdered relative would be taunted by all the women, and this would soon render his own life in the tribe an intolerable one. But I have never come across the custom which is prevalent in Africa among some primitive peoples, that is, to search for the same relative to the murdered as the murdered man was to the avenger: for example, “You have killed my nephew, I will kill your nephew.”
When an intentional murder has been committed the murderer flies to the bush, where he is promptly followed, and the pursuit is not foregone until the criminal is secured or the pursuers find themselves in imminent danger from a hostile tribe. In the latter case the blood-feud remains open for an early settlement, and the friends of the murderer are dealt with first.
Homicide is, in fact, always looked upon as a wrong done to a man’s tribe or family, rather than to the individual himself. In the case of accidental homicide it may still lead to a blood-feud. The deed is done, that is sufficient for these simple-minded folk. It may possibly be put down to the witchcraft of some neighbouring medicine-man who has bewitched the unintentional slayer with hostile motives; but that will not save the unfortunate offender, rather is it an additional argument that he should be destroyed lest worse trouble follow. There is also to be reckoned with the idea that the dead man’s spirit will haunt the tribe, and especially his nearest relative, until his blood has been avenged.[278] Besides, it is undoubtedly difficult to draw the line between accident and design, and, for the matter of that, the meaning of the word “accident” is unknown to the Indian.
The chief and the tribe will sometimes take up the quarrel as their own, but, on the other hand, a man considers it a disgraceful thing not to be able to avenge his own wrongs, and, therefore, never applies to the chief for tribal help. This is true of all small communities, an affront of any one of the community being a personal attack upon every other member, but it is not necessary that it should be avenged by all, unless the affronted one be unable for any cause to complete his revenge by himself.
No tribal notice is taken of a murder committed intra-family, such as the murder of a son or a wife, as no revenge is necessary; the loss only affects the murderers, and it is simply arranged by the family itself. The loss of one member does not suggest itself as a reasonable cause for compelling the loss of another. The one exception to this would be if the murdered man were a noted warrior whose death would constitute a serious tribal loss. Action might then be taken by the whole tribe after the usual tobacco palaver.
So much for death by violence; there remains something to be said of death by disease, and of sickness not necessarily ending in death.
All travellers and writers have noticed how prone the Indian is to sun-sickness. Living as he does in the perpetual gloom of his tribal house, or the restricted light of the forest depths, he appears to be exceptionally susceptible to the effects of strong sunshine. His sensitiveness is tried further by any sort of change, even a transference from the upper reaches to the main rivers completely upsets him. Indians appear to go sick especially on moving only a short way from their own locality. They are also bad subjects for malarial fevers, and the Issa River is notoriously unhealthy in this respect. By this I mean the river itself, and in its immediate vicinage. Even a few hundred yards away from its banks the country is comparatively healthy and free from pestilent fly-belts, which, it will be remembered, are at their worst some three days steam up that river.[279] On the Brazilian frontier especially the pium from sunrise to sunset is unbearable. The beginning of the rains invariably brings fever.
On the other hand, chest complaints are rare, respiratory disease is unknown, and throat diseases uncommon, though you meet victims to rheumatism and cramp. There is no venereal disease among these tribes, and no umbilical hernia. Phimosis is common, and so are gastric complaints. Diseases of the eye are rare, though squinting is extremely prevalent.
There are many parasitic diseases. Ringworm and intestinal worm are very general troubles, and lice in the head universal. Jiggers in the Indian houses are a pest to all, and one of the daily duties of the Indian wife consists in the examination of her man’s feet to remove any thorns or jiggers that may have effected a lodgment. This jigger is similar to the African species; it burrows into the foot, and lays its eggs beneath the skin. I have had as many as thirty-seven picked out of my foot at one time. The nuisance can be largely diminished if the traveller take the precaution always to wear boots in or about an Indian house, for jiggers are not found in the bush itself, though a somewhat similar pest abounds on the leaves and grasses,[280] and causes abominable irritation. In the Rubber Belt the usual remedy for this is a bath of white rum.