Chapter II: Hunters and Fishers (3)

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” [1084]. 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” [1085].

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 [1086].

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” [1087]. 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 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 [1088]. Mackenzie tells us, that among the Knisteneaux women are in the same subjected condition as among other wild tribes [1089]. 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 [1090]. 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” [1091]. Among the Kutchins, as we have seen in § 2, the condition of women is a rather bad one [1092]. Mackenzie speaks of the “extreme subjection and abasement” of Beaver Indian women [1093]. 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 [1094]. 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 [1095]. 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” [1096]. The wife may thus with impunity leave her husband, the latter venting his anger upon “somebody”. Schoolcraft states that Comanche women are not thought much of, even by themselves; the husband has unlimited sway over his wife [1097]. 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” [1098].

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 life” [1099]. 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 [1100].

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 [1101]. Among the Ojibways the end of education is to make good hunters and warriors [1102]. According to Mackenzie, warfare and hunting, among the Knisteneaux, are the occupations of the men. They are continually engaged in warfare [1103]. The Blackfeet were very warlike, and always fighting with their neighbours [1104]. 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” [1105]. The Beaver Indians were even more warlike than the Chepewyans [1106]. Mrs. Eastman calls the Sioux “brave, daring, revengeful” [1107]. 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” [1108]. 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” [1109].

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 [1110].

Concluding, we may remark, that the Indians of Central North America differ from the tribes of the Pacific Coast in many respects. They have no abundance of food, are hunters and nomadic; wealth does not exist, and militarism prevails to a great extent. The groups in which they live, though larger than in Australia, are smaller than on the Pacific Coast. Food is preserved, but not so systematically as on the Pacific Coast. The condition of women, though not so bad as in Australia, is not quite so good as among the slave-keeping tribes of the North-West Coast of North America. Their trade consists only in exchanging raw products; and industry is little developed.

§ 5. Experimentum crucis: Eskimos.

1º. Abundance of food. In Greenland vegetable food is very scarce. The flesh of the reindeer is most valued by the Greenlanders, but is not available in large quantities; so they have to live chiefly upon sea-animals, seals, fish and sea-birds [1111]. Boas states that “the mode of life of all the Eskimo tribes of North-Eastern America is very uniform.” They depend entirely on animal food, especially seals and deer [1112]. Bancroft, speaking of the Eskimos of Alaska, remarks: “Their substantials comprise the flesh of land and marine animals, fish and birds; venison, and whale and seal blubber being chief” [1113]. Though we nowhere find it stated that food is exceedingly scarce, the details given here sufficiently prove that it is not nearly so abundant as on the Pacific Coast. Shell-fish, fruits, roots, and other vegetables, acquired so easily and in large quantities by the tribes of the Pacific Coast, do not enter for any considerable part into the food of the Eskimos.

2º. As for fishing, taken in the wider sense (including the killing of water animals besides fish), all Eskimos are fishers.

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Though the Eskimos move about much for the purpose of obtaining food, they are not quite nomadic. In winter-time they live in solidly constructed dwellings [1114]. Rink states that they have their winter-houses on the same place during several generations [1115]. Boas remarks: “There is no need of any new buildings, as the Eskimo always locate in the old settlements and the old buildings are quite sufficient to satisfy all their wants” [1116]. And Crantz tells us that a Greenlander is not generally much inclined to leave the place where he was born and bred and settle somewhere else; for in nearly every place there is a peculiar method of fishing and seal-hunting, which the newcomer has to learn; and in the meantime, often for several years, he is poorly off [1117]. An Eskimo village most often consists of a single house [1118], but Eskimo houses accommodate several (in Greenland from 4 to 10) families [1119]. Among the Western Eskimos, however, there are larger villages [1120]. Food is preserved for winter use by the Eskimos, though not in such large quantities as on the Pacific Coast. “The Esquimaux” says a writer on British North America “possess a quality which I may say is almost unknown among Indians, namely, providence; thus, in the season, when the animals are plentiful on the shores of the Arctic Sea, they make “caches” of large quantities of meat for winter use” [1121]. The Greenlanders, though laying up some provision for the winter, are rather improvident. As long as they have abundance of food, they feast and gorge themselves with it; but in the winter they often live in the greatest misery [1122]. Boas, speaking of Central Eskimo store-houses, remarks: “In winter, blubber and meat are put away upon these pillars, which are sufficiently high to keep them from the dogs.” Yet “the house presents a sad and gloomy appearance if stormy weather prevents the men from hunting. The stores are quickly consumed, one lamp after another is extinguished, and everybody sits motionless in the dark hut” [1123]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “meats are kept in seal-skin bags for over a year.... Their winter store of oil they secure in seal-skin bags, which are buried in the frozen ground” [1124].

4º. Trade and industry. Rink states that the Eskimos make long journeys for the purpose of interchanging such commodities, as are found in some districts only and yet are necessary to all the tribes. The trade is carried on from Asia to Hudson Bay [1125]. The Greenlanders mutually exchange the articles they need. With some of them bartering is quite a passion; they often exchange useful things for worthless trifles. They have a kind of annual fair, at which the inhabitants of several districts interchange the products of their country. “A great article of commerce are vessels made of soapstone, which are not found in all parts of the country; and, as the Southern Greenlanders have no whales and the Northern no wood, there come, all through the summer months, from the South and even from the East of the country many boats with Greenlanders from 100 to 200 miles, to Disko, bringing new kyaks and women’s boats with the necessary implements. They receive in exchange horns, teeth, bones, whale-bones and whale-tendons, part of which, on their homeward voyage, they sell again” [1126]. Among the Central Eskimos “two desiderata formed the principal inducement to long journeys, which sometimes lasted even several years: wood and soapstone. The shores of Davis’ Strait and Cumberland Sound are almost destitute of driftwood, and consequently the natives were obliged to visit distant regions to obtain that necessary material. Tudjaqdjuaq in particular was the objective point of their expeditions. Their boats took a southerly course, and, as the wood was gathered, a portion of it was immediately manufactured into boat ribs and sledge runners, which were carried back on the return journey; another portion was used for bows, though these were also made of deer’s horns ingeniously lashed together. A portion of the trade in wood seems to have been in the hands of the Nugumiut, who collected it on Tudjaqdjuaq and took it north. Another necessary and important article of trade, soapstone, is manufactured into lamps and pots. It is found in a few places only, and very rarely in pieces large enough for the manufacture of the articles named.... The visitors come from every part of the country, the soapstone being dug or “traded” from the rocks by depositing some trifles in exchange. In addition to wood and soapstone, metals, which were extremely rare in old times, have formed an important object of trade. They were brought to Baffin Bay either by the Aivillirmiut, who had obtained them from the Hudson Bay Company and the Kinipetu, or by the Akuliarmiut. Even when Frobisher visited the Nugumiut in 1577 he found them in possession of some iron. The occurrence of flint, which was the material for arrow-heads, may have given some importance to places where it occurs. Formerly an important trade existed between the Netchillirmiut and the neighbouring tribes. As the district of the former is destitute of driftwood and potstone, they are compelled to buy both articles from their neighbours. In Ross’s time they got the necessary wood from Ugjulik, the potstone from Aivillik. They exchanged these articles for native iron (or pyrite), which they found on the eastern shore of Boothia and which was used for striking fire. After having collected a sufficient stock of it during several years, they travelled to the neighbouring tribes” [1127]. The Eskimos of Alaska are also very commercial. “On the shore of Bering Strait the natives have constant commercial intercourse with Asia.... They frequently meet at the Gwosdeff Islands, where the Tschuktschi bring tobacco, iron, tame-reindeer skins, and walrus-ivory; the Eskimos giving in exchange wolf and wolverine skins, wooden dishes, seal-skins and other peltries. The Eskimos of the American coast carry on quite an extensive trade with the Indians of the interior, exchanging with them Asiatic merchandise for peltries” [1128]. We see that most of the Eskimo trade is bartering of raw products. This agrees with what Rink remarks, viz. that there is no division of labour; each group that has a tent or boat is entirely self-dependent [1129].

In industry they display much skill. Their boats are ingeniously made and have excited the admiration of all travellers. “The kajak (qajaq) is almost exclusively used for hunting by all Eskimo tribes from Greenland to Alaska” [1130]. Crantz tells us that the implements the Greenlanders use for procuring their subsistence are simple, but so well adapted to their purpose that they are more convenient than the costly implements of the Europeans. Their harpoons consist of several pieces, but are so ingeniously made that not a single piece is superfluous. Their boats are also greatly admired by this writer [1131]. And Bancroft tells us that “the Hyperboreans surpass all American nations in their facilities for locomotion, both upon land and water. In their skin boats, the natives of the Alaskan seaboard, from Point Barrow to Mount St. Elias, made long voyages, crossing the strait and sea of Bering, and held commercial intercourse with the people of Asia. Sixty miles is an ordinary day’s journey for sledges, while Indians on snow-shoes have been known to run down and capture deer”. “So highly were these boats esteemed by the Russians, that they were at once universally adopted by them in navigating these waters. They were unable to invent any improvement in either of them” [1132].

5º. Property and wealth. It is nowhere stated that a man’s rank or power depends upon his wealth. The Greenlanders live without any government; the head of each family is independent. When several families live together in one house, they have no control over each other, but voluntarily obey the most respected head of a family, i.e. the one who is best acquainted with hunting and the signs of the weather. Yet our informant also states: “If several Greenlanders live together, they like to keep an angekok (priest), to avail themselves of his advice. And if they do not keep one, they are despised or pitied by the others as being poor men” [1133]. So poor people are despised, but this applies to villages or settlements rather than individuals. This agrees with what Rink tells us of their communistic régime. Only the indispensable implements and utensils are individual property, and also provisions sufficient for less than a year. If an individual or group have got too much, they are compelled by public opinion to give it to those who have too little [1134]. Among the Central Eskimos men unable to provide for themselves are employed as servants, but their position “is a voluntary one, and therefore these men are not less esteemed than the self-dependent providers” [1135]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “now or then some ancient or able man gains an ascendency in the tribe, and overawes his fellows.” “Caste has been mentioned in connection with tattooing, but, as a rule, social distinctions do not exist” [1136].

Though the Eskimos are dependent for their subsistence on the possession of boats, houses and implements, they do not want more property than is needed for procuring their daily food. According to Rink, the benefit of an inheritance is smaller than the duties it involves; for boat and tent continually require so much mending, that a single hunter is hardly able to keep them in order [1137]. In Greenland, if a man dies leaving no full-grown son, his goods devolve upon the next of kin, who is obliged to provide for the widow and her children. But if he already possesses a tent and a boat, he will leave the inheritance and the duties connected with it to an alien; for nobody is capable of keeping two tents and two boats in repair [1138].

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 [1139]. And Bancroft tells us that among the Eskimos of Alaska “the lot of the women is but little better than slavery” [1140]. The principal cause of this 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” [1141]. 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” [1142]. Among the Western Eskimos “polygamy is common, every man being entitled to as many wives, as he can get and maintain” [1143]. 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” [1144]. 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 [1145]. 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” [1146]. 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” [1147]. 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 [1148].

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 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 [1149]. Bancroft also states that considerable skill is required in taking seals [1150], and Boas describes at great length the ingenious methods used in seal, walrus, and whale hunting [1151]. 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 [1152].

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 [1153]. 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” [1154]. 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 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” [1155]. 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 [1156]. 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 [1157]; 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.

§ 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.

2º. The living in fixed habitations is more favourable to the existence of slavery than nomadism.

3º. Slavery is most likely to exist among men who live in rather large groups.

4º. Where food is abundant and easy to procure, slaves can be of more use than where food is scarce; in the latter case the slave, to use Spencer’s words, “is not worth his food.”

5º. The preserving of food furthers the growth of slavery.

6º. Commercial tribes, especially those that carry on a trade in manufactured goods, have more use for slaves than others. We must, however, bear in mind that trade, even among savages, does not seem anywhere to be altogether unknown.

7º. A high development of industry also tends to further the growth of slavery. The instance of the Eskimos, however, shows that industrial tribes do not always keep slaves.

8º. Where wealth exists slaves are more likely to be kept than where wealth is unknown.

9º. Where subsistence is dependent on capital, slaves are not wanted.

10º. Where only highly skilled labour is required, slaves cannot be of any use.

11º. Female labour may in some degree serve as a substitute for slave labour (as in Australia). But where women enjoy much consideration, the men sometimes procure slaves in order to relieve the women of a part of their task, especially where the women perform productive labour.

12º. Where militarism largely prevails, and warriors are more wanted than labourers, slavery is not likely to exist. Yet in a few cases the same militarism leads to the keeping of slaves, viz. when slaves are kept mainly for military purposes.

13º. Tribes forming a somewhat homogeneous group, and maintaining constant relations with each other, are more likely, ceteris paribus, to keep slaves, than an isolated tribe.

These conclusions, arrived at by an examination of hunting and fishing tribes, all, except the first, bear a general character. We may therefore suppose that they will equally apply to pastoral and agricultural tribes. Whether this really be the case, will appear from the ensuing chapters. It may, however, be convenient first to simplify and systematically arrange them.

As the principal factor we may regard the general economic state of society. Two distinctions are to be made here:

1º. Subsistence either is or is not dependent on capital.

2º. Subsistence is either easy or difficult to acquire.

These two distinctions are independent of each other. For where subsistence depends on capital, it may, with the aid of capital, be easily acquired or not. Similarly, where it does not depend on capital, it may be easy or difficult to procure. Accordingly we find the following forms of economic life:

1º. Subsistence depends on capital. Without capital a man cannot get on. Now, if labourers are wanted, there are likely to be people destitute of capital, who have no other resource left but to offer their labour to the capitalist. But there is a difference, according as subsistence is easily acquired or not.

a. Subsistence, even with the aid of capital, is difficult to procure. The procuring of subsistence requires a combination of capital and skilled labour. Thus among the Eskimos a man unacquainted with their ingenious hunting and fishing methods cannot get on any more than a man destitute of a boat, or of sledges and dogs. Here labourers are not much wanted. Helpless persons are kept as servants, but this is done for pity’s sake rather than because they are useful. Slavery does not exist.

b. Subsistence, with the aid of capital, is easy to procure. Unskilled labour, combined with capital, is so productive that it gives a surplus beyond the subsistence of the labourer. In this case the capitalist wants labourers, but there are also labourers who want the capitalist. We have not yet met with any instance of this state of things. Slavery can exist here, if the demand for labour exceeds the supply of labour; but we do not think this will often be the case.

2º. Subsistence does not depend on capital. We are, of course, aware that a man, to procure his subsistence, always wants some implements, such as a spear, bow and arrow, etc. But he does not, therefore, depend on capital; for he can always make a spear or bow for himself; so after all, he depends only on his own strength and skill. If an Eskimo loses his boat, he wants a long time to make a new one; in the meantime he has to live, and so is thrown upon the mercy of others. But where the necessary implements can always be procured at a moment’s notice, subsistence is not dependent on capital: the man who has broken his spear can immediately make a new one; he need not ask anybody to feed him in the meantime [1158].

Subsistence, where it does not depend on capital, is again either easy or difficult to procure.

a. Subsistence is not easy to procure; it requires much skill. As subsistence does not depend on capital, every skilled labourer is able to provide for himself. Those who are not able providers are dependent on the others; but their labour, being little productive, is not much valued. Such is the state of things among many hunting tribes. As slaves cannot be compelled to perform work that requires the utmost skill and application, slavery cannot exist here.

b. Subsistence is easy to procure. The produce of unskilled labour can exceed the primary wants of the labourer. As subsistence is not dependent on capital, everybody is able to provide for himself; therefore labourers do not voluntarily offer themselves. In such circumstances a man can, it is true, acquire the products of another’s labour by producing commodities himself and exchanging them for what another has produced. He can also, like the Makah boat-owner, produce such things as enhance the productiveness of labour, and lend them to others, stipulating for a part of the profit for himself. But he cannot make others work under his direction. The common labourer of modern European societies, in order to get his subsistence, performs the work which his employer assigns to him. Were he free to choose, he would prefer to work according to his own inclinations. In countries however, where nobody need apply to another for employment, there is little chance of people voluntarily submitting to the orders of employers. In such countries, if there is to be an organization of labour with subordination under the master of the work, some men must be compelled to work for others, and we know that one form of compulsory labour is slavery. Therefore, when subsistence is easy to procure, and not dependent on capital, slave labour can be of much use. Yet even then slavery does not always exist. We shall see that there are disturbing factors. But we may now, at least, say that, generally speaking, slavery can only exist when subsistence is easy to procure without the aid of capital.

There are some additional, or secondary, factors which increase or diminish the use of slave labour.

1º. It may be, that unskilled labour is required, but is sufficiently performed by the women. Thus in Australia women gather vegetable food and perform all the common drudgery; and some Australian tribes subsist mainly on the produce of female labour. In such cases slaves are not wanted. This is a circumstance of much importance; for everywhere women are about half, sometimes more than half, of the population. As in our days, in civilized Europe, the employing of women in factories tends to diminish the want for male labour and so to keep wages low, so female labour in Australia makes slavery superfluous. The causes on which the division of labour between the sexes depends cannot be examined here; this would require an investigation of the whole history of marriage. But, though unable to find the causes, we can trace the effects of this division of labour. Where women are looked upon as “beasts of burden” (to use an expression the ethnographers are very fond of), there is not so much use for slave labour as where they hold a high position and the men are desirous of relieving them of a part of their task.

2º. Where food is preserved in large quantities, more work has to be done at a time, viz. in the season of plenty, than where life is continually a hand-to-mouth proceeding. And the additional work required for preserving food, e.g. the drying of fish, is very fit to be imposed upon slaves: it requires little skill and is easy to supervise.

3º. The development of trade and industry has a great influence. When the freemen wish to devote themselves to these pursuits, they want others to perform the common drudgery for every-day subsistence. Moreover, the preparing of the articles of commerce may require menial labour: thus on the Pacific Coast slaves are employed in drying fish, preparing oil, etc. And finally, trade and industry lead to the development of wealth. As soon as wealth exists, a man does not only want food and the other necessaries of life, but also luxuries, so his wants may become almost unlimited, and there is much more use for slave labour.

Hitherto we have considered slavery as serving economic purposes. But slaves may also be kept for non-economic purposes. There is only one such purpose we have as yet met with: the employing of slaves in warfare. We have seen that among the Abipones this was the main and almost the only function of slavery.

On the other hand, it may be that militarism so largely prevails, that all available men are wanted in warfare. If, then, the military organization is not so highly developed, that slaves can be employed in warfare without any danger, slavery is not likely to exist, though it might be economically of great use.

There are other causes, which we may call external. However much slaves are wanted, there must be a coercive power strong enough to make the keeping of slaves possible. The following causes tend to increase this coercive power:

1º. Living in fixed habitations. Besides the effect this has on the growth of industry, it makes the escape of slaves more difficult and the surveying of slave labour easier.

2º. Living together in large groups. In a small group any increase in the number of slaves would soon become dangerous to the maintenance of power by the freemen within the group, and an escaping slave would soon be out of reach of the group.

3º. The preserving of food. Besides having some economic effects of which we have treated above, it makes living in large groups and in fixed habitations possible; moreover it attaches the slave to his master’s home; for he knows he will get there sufficient food in the time of scarcity, whereas, if he escaped, he would have to shift for himself.

4º. The existence of a somewhat homogeneous group of tribes maintaining constant relations with each other greatly accelerates the growth of slavery, especially by means of the slave trade. Twenty tribes, living separately, have, each for itself, to invent slavery; but when twenty tribes maintain relations with each other, as soon as one of them has invented slavery, the other 19 have it ready-made before them.

RECAPITULATION.

Furthering the Hindering the
growth of slavery. growth of slavery.

I. Internal causes.

A. General: 1º. Subsistence 1º. Subsistence
easily acquired and dependent on
not dependent on capital.
2º. Subsistence not
dependent on capital,
but difficult to
acquire.
B. Secondary, economic: 1º. Preserving of 1º. Female labour
food. making slave labour
superfluous.
2º. Trade and industry.
3º. A high position of
women.
C. Secondary, 1º. Slaves wanted 1º. Militarism
non-economic: for military making slavery
purposes. impossible.

II. External causes: 1º. Fixed habitations.
2º. Living in large
groups.
3º. Preserving of food
[1159].
4º. The existence of a
homogeneous group of
tribes.