Part 63 (1/2)
Of the Patagonians Falkner says (125) that the women ”are obliged to submit to every species of drudgery.” He gives a long list of their duties (including even hunting) and adds:
”No excuse of sickness, or being big with child, will relieve them from their appointed labor; and so rigidly are they obliged to perform their duty, that their husbands cannot help them on any occasion, or in the greatest distress, without incurring the highest ignominy.”
Even the wives of the chiefs were obliged to drudge unless they had slaves. At their marriages there is little ceremony, the bride being simply handed over to the man as his property. The Fuegians, according to Fitzroy, when reduced to a state of famine, became cannibals, eating their old women first, before they kill their dogs. A boy being asked why they did this, answered: ”Doggie catch otters, old women no.” (Darwin, _V B._, 214.)
Thus, from the extreme north to the extreme south of the American continent we find the ”n.o.ble red man” consistent in at least one thing--his maltreatment of women. How, in the face of these facts, which might be multiplied indefinitely, a specialist like Horatio Hale could write that there was among the Indians ”complete equality of the s.e.xes in social estimation and influence,” and that
”casual observers have been misled by the absence of those artificial expressions of courtesy which have descended to us from the time of chivalry, and which, however gracious and pleasing to witness, are, after all, merely signs of condescension and protection from the strong to the weak”[220]
--surpa.s.ses all understanding. It is a shameful perversion of the truth, as all the intelligent and unbia.s.sed evidence of observers from the earliest time proves.
HOW INDIANS ADORE SQUAWS
Not content with maltreating their squaws, the Indians literally add insult to injury by the low estimation in which they hold them. A few sample ill.u.s.trations must suffice to show how far that adoration which a modern lover feels for women and for his sweetheart in particular is beyond their mental horizon.
”The Indians,” says Hunter (250), ”regarding themselves as the lords of the earth, look down upon the squaws as an inferior order of beings,” created to rear families and do all the drudgery; ”and the squaws, accustomed to such usage, cheerfully acquiesce in it as a duty.” The squaw is not esteemed for her own sake, but ”in proportion to the number of children she raises, particularly if they are males, and prove brave warriors.” Franklin says (287) that the Copper Indians ”hold women in the same low estimation as the Chippewayans do, looking upon them as a kind of property which the stronger may take from the weaker.” He also speaks (157) ”of the office of nurse, so degrading in the eyes of a Chippewayan, as partaking of the duties of a woman.”
”The manner of the Indian boy toward his mother,” writes Willoughby (274), ”is almost uniformly disrespectful;” while the adults consider it a disgrace to do a woman's work--that is, practically any work at all; for hunting is not regarded as work, but is indulged in for the sport and excitement. In the preface to Mrs. Eastman's book on the Dakotas we read:
”The peculiar sorrows of the Sioux woman commence at her birth. Even as a child she is despised, in comparison with her brother beside her, who is one day to be a great warrior.”
”Almost everything that a man owns is sacred,” says Neill (86), ”but nothing that the woman possesses is so esteemed.” The most insulting epithets that can be bestowed on a Sioux are coward, dog, woman. Among the Creeks, ”old woman” is the greatest term of reproach which can be used to those not distinguished by war names. You may call an Indian a liar without arousing his anger, but to call him a woman is to bring on a quarrel at once. (Schoolcraft, V., 280.) If the Natchez have a prisoner who winces under torture he is turned over to the women as being unworthy to die by the hands of men. (Charlevoix, 207.) In many cases boys are deliberately taught to despise their mothers as their inferiors. Blackfeet men mourn for the loss of a man by scarifying their legs; but if the deceased is only a woman, this is never done.
(Grinnell, 194.) Among all the tribes the men look on manual work as a degradation, fit only for women. The Abipones think it beneath a man to take any part in female quarrels, and this too is a general trait.
(Dobrizhoffer, II., 155.)[221] Mrs. Eastman relates (XVII.) that
”among the Dakotas the men think it undignified for them to steal, so they send their wives thus unlawfully to procure what they want--and woe be to them if they are found out.”
Horse-stealing alone is considered worthy of superior man. But the most eloquent testimony to the Indian's utter contempt for woman is contributed in an unguarded moment by his most ardent champion. Catlin relates (_N.A.I._, I., 226) how he at one time undertook to paint the portraits of the chiefs and such of the warriors as the chiefs deemed worthy of such an honor. All was well until, after doing the men, he proposed also to paint the pictures of some of the squaws:
”I at once got myself into a serious perplexity, being heartily laughed at by the whole tribe, both by men and by women, for my exceeding and (to them) unaccountable condescension in seriously proposing to paint a woman, conferring on her the same honor that I had done the chiefs and braves. Those whom I had honored were laughed at by the hundreds of the jealous, who had been decided unworthy the distinction, and were now amusing themselves with the _very enviable honor_ which the _great white medicine man_ had conferred _especially_ on them, and was now to confer equally upon the _squaws!_”
CHOOSING A HUSBAND
It might be inferred _a priori_ that savages who despise and abuse their women as the Indians do would not allow girls to choose their own husbands except in cases where no selfish reason existed to force them to marry the choice of their parents. This inference is borne out by the facts. Westermarck, indeed, remarks (215) that ”among the Indians of North America, numberless instances are given of woman's liberty to choose her husband.” But of the dozen or so cases he cites, several rest on unreliable evidence, some have nothing to do with the question at issue,[222] and others prove exactly the contrary of what he a.s.serts; while, _more suo_, he placidly ignores the ma.s.s of facts which disprove his a.s.sertion that ”women are not, as a rule, married without having any voice of their own in the matter.” There are, no doubt, some tribes who allow their women more or less freedom. Apache courts.h.i.+p appears to be carried on in two ways, in each of which the girl has the power to refuse. In both cases the proposal is made by pantomime, without a word being spoken. According to Cremony (245).
the lover stakes his horse in front of the girl's ”roost.” Should she favor his suit, she takes his horse, gives it food and water, and secures it in front of his lodge. Four days comprise the term allowed for an answer. Dr. J.W. Hoffman relates[223] that a Coyotero Apache, having selected the girl he wants, watches to find out the trail she is apt to frequent when she goes to pick berries or gra.s.s seed. Having discovered it, he places a row of stones on both sides of it for a distance of ten or fifteen paces:
”He then allows himself to be seen by the maiden before she leaves camp, and running ahead, hides himself in the immediate vicinity of the row of stones. If she avoids them by pa.s.sing to the outside, it is a refusal, but should she continue on her trail, and pa.s.s between the two rows, he immediately rushes out, catches her and ... carries her triumphantly to camp.”
Lewis and Clarke relate (441) that among the Chinooks the women ”have a rank and influence very rarely found among Indians.” They are allowed to speak freely before the men, their advice is asked, and the men do not make drudges of them. The reason for this may be found in a sentence from Ross's book on Oregon (90): ”Slaves do all the laborious work.” Among such Indians one might expect that girls would have their inclinations consulted when it came to choosing a husband. In the twelfth chapter of his _Wa-Kee-Nah_, James C. Strong gives a graphic description of a bridal chase which he once witnessed among the Mountain Chinooks. A chief had an attractive daughter who was desired by four braves. The parents, having no special choice in the matter, decided that there should be a race on horseback, the girl being the winner's prize. But if the parents had no preference, the girl had; she indulged in various ingenious manoeuvres to make it possible for the Indian on the bay horse to overtake her first. He succeeded, put his arm round her waist, lifted her from her horse to his own, and married her the next day.
Here the girl had her way, and yet it was only by accident, for while she had a preference, she had no liberty of choice. It was the parents who ordered the bridal race, and, had another won it, she would have been his. It is indeed difficult to find real instances of liberty of choice where the daughter's desire conflicted with the wishes of the parents or other relatives. Westermarck claims that the Creeks endeavored to gain the girl's consent, but no such fact can be gathered from the pa.s.sage he refers to (Schoolcraft, V., 269).
Moreover, among the Creeks, unrestrained license prevailed before marriage, and marriage was considered only as a temporary convenience, not binding on the party more than a year; and finally, Creeks who wanted to marry had to gain the consent of the young woman's uncles, aunts, and brothers. Westermarck also says that among the Thlinkets the suitor had to consult the wishes of the ”young lady;” yet on page 511 he tells us that among these Indians, ”when a husband dies, his sister's son _must_ marry the widow.” It does not seem likely that where even widows are treated so unceremoniously, any deference is paid to the wishes of the ”young ladies.” From Keating Westermarck gathers the information that although with the Chippewas the mothers generally settle the preliminaries to marriage without consulting the children, the parties are not considered husband and wife till they have given their consent. A reference to the original pa.s.sage gives, however, a different impression, showing that the parents always have their own way, unless the girl elopes. The suitor's mother arranges the matter with the parents of the girl he wants, and when the terms have been agreed upon her property is removed to his lodge. ”The disappearance of the property is the first intimation which she receives of the contemplated change in her condition.” If one or both are unwilling, ”the parents, who have a great influence, generally succeed in bringing them to second their views.”
COMPULSORY ”FREE CHOICE”
A story related by C.G. Murr, a German missionary, warns us that a.s.sertions as to the girls being consulted must always be accepted with great caution. His remarks relate to several countries of Spanish America. He was often urged to find husbands for girls only thirteen years old, by their mothers, who were tired of watching them. ”Much against my will,” he writes,