like Westermarck (359) from soberly quoting Catlin's declaration that
"it would be untrue and doing injustice to the Indians, to say that
they were in the least behind us in conjugal, in filial, and in
paternal affection" (_L.N.N.A.I._, I., 121). There is only one way of
gauging a man's affection, and that is by his actions. Now how,
according to Catlin himself, does an Indian act toward his wife? Even
among the Mandans, so superior to the other Indians he visited, he
found that the women, however attractive or hungry they might be,

"are not allowed to sit in the same group with the men
while at their meals. So far as I have yet travelled in
the Indian country I have never seen an Indian woman
eating with her husband. Men form the first group at
the banquet, and _women and children and dogs_ all come
together at the next."

Men first, women and dogs next--yet they are "not in the least behind
us in conjugal affection!" With his childish disregard of logic and
lack of a sense of humor Catlin goes on to tell us that Mandan women
lose their beauty soon because of their early marriages and "the
slavish life they lead." In many cases, he adds, the inclinations of
the girl are not considered in marriage, _the father selling her to
the highest bidder_.

Mandan conjugal affection, "just like ours," is further manifested by
the custom, previously referred to, which obliges mourning women to
crop off all their hair, while of a man's locks, which "are of much
greater importance," only one or two can be spared. (Catlin, _l.c._,
I., 95, 119, 121; II., 123.) An amusing illustration of the Mandan's
supercilious contempt for women, also by Catlin, will be given
later.[213]

The Sioux tribes in general have always been notorious for the brutal
treatment of their women. Mrs. Eastman, who wrote a book on their
customs, once received an offer of marriage from a chief who had a
habit of expending all his surplus bad temper upon his wives. He had
three of them, but was willing to give them all up if she would live
with him. She refused, as she "did not fancy having her head split
open every few days with a stick of wood." G.P. Belden, who also knew
the Sioux thoroughly, having lived among them twelve years, wrote
(270, 303-5) that "the days of her childhood are the only happy or
pleasant days the Indian girl ever knows." "From the day of her
marriage [in which she has no choice] until her death she leads a most
wretched life." The women are "the servants of servants." "On a winter
day the Sioux mother is often obliged to travel eight or ten miles and
carry her lodge, camp-kettle, ax, child, and several small dogs on her
back and head." She has to build the camp, cook, take care of the
children, and even of the pony on which her lazy and selfish husband
has ridden while she tramped along with all those burdens. "So severe
is their treatment of women, a happy female face is hardly ever seen
in the Sioux nation." Many become callous, and take a beating much as
a horse or ox does. "Suicide is very common among Indian women, and,
considering the treatment they receive, it is a wonder there is not
more of it."[214]

Burton attests (_C.S._, 125, 130, 60) that "the squaw is a mere slave,
living a life of utter drudgery." The husbands "care little for their
wives." "The drudgery of the tent and field renders the squaw cold and
unimpassioned." "The son is taught to make his mother toil for him."
"One can hardly expect a smiling countenance from the human biped
trudging ten or twenty miles under a load fit for a mule." "Dacotah
females," writes Neill (82, 85),

"deserve the sympathy of every tender heart. From early
childhood they lead worse than a dog's life.
Uncultivated and treated like brutes, they are prone to
suicide, and, when desperate, they act more like
infuriated beasts than creatures of reason."

Of the Crow branch of the Dakotas, Catlin wrote:[215] "They are,
_like all other Indian women, the slaves of their husbands_ ... and
not allowed to join in their religious rites and ceremonies, nor in
the dance or other amusements." All of which is delightfully
consistent with this writer's assertion that the Indians are "not in
the least behind us in conjugal affection."[216]

In his _Travels Through the Northwest Regions of the United States_
Schoolcraft thus sums up (231) his observations:

"Of the state of female society among the Northern Indians I
shall say little, because on a review of it I find very
little to admire, either in their collective morality, or
personal endowments.... Doomed to drudgery and hardships
from infancy ... without either mental resources or personal
beauty--what can be said in favor of the Indian women?"

A French author, Eugene A. Vail, writes an interesting summary
(207-14) of the realistic descriptions given by older writers of the
brutal treatment to which the women of the Northern Indians were
subjected. He refers, among other things, to the efforts made by
Governor Cass, of Michigan, to induce the Indians to treat their women
more humanely; but all persuasion was in vain, and the governor
finally had to resort to punishment. He also refers to the selfish
ingenuity with which the men succeeded in persuading the foolish
squaws that it would be a disgrace for their lords and masters to do
any work, and that polygamy was a desirable thing. The men took as
many wives as they pleased, and if one of them remonstrated against a
new rival, she received a sound thrashing.

In Franklin's _Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea_ we are informed
(160) that the women are obliged to drag the heavily laden sledges:

"Nothing can more shock the feelings of a person
accustomed to civilized life than to witness the state
of their degradation. When a party is on a march the
women have to drag the tent, the meat, and whatever the
hunter possesses, whilst he only carries his gun and
medicine case."

When the men have killed any large beast, says Hearne (90), the women
are always sent to carry it to the tent. They have to prepare and cook
it,

"and when it is done the wives and daughters of the
greatest captains in the country are never served till
all the males, even those who are in the capacity of
servants, have eaten what they think proper."

Of the Chippewas, Keating says (II., 153), that "frequently ... their
brutal conduct to their wives produces abortions."

A friend of the Blackfoot Indians, G.B. Grinnell, relates (184, 216)
that, while boys play and do as they please, a girl's duties begin at
an early age, and she soon does all a woman's "and so menial" work.
Their fathers select husbands for them and, if they disobey, have a
right to beat or even kill them. "As a consequence of this severity,
suicide was quite common among the Blackfoot girls."

A passage in William Wood's _New England Prospect_, published in
1634,[217] throws light on the aboriginal condition of Indian women in
that region. Wood refers to "the customarie churlishnesse and salvage
inhumanitie" of the men. The Indian women, he says, are

"more loving, pittiful and modest, milde, provident,
and laborious than their lazie husbands.... Since the
_English_ arrivall comparison hath made them miserable,
for seeing the kind usage of the _English_ to their
wives, they doe as much condemne their husbands for
unkindnesse and commend the _English_ for love, as
their husbands, commending themselves for their wit in
keeping their wives industrious, doe condemn the
_English_ for their folly in spoiling good working
creatures."

Concerning the intelligent, widely scattered, and numerous Iroquois,
Morgan, who knew them more intimately than anyone else, wrote (322),
that "the Indian regarded woman as the inferior, the dependent, and
the servant of man, and, from nature and habit, she actually
considered herself to be so." "Adultery was punished by whipping; but
the punishment was inflicted on the woman alone, who was supposed to
be the only offender" (331). "Female life among the Hurons had no
bright side," wrote Parkman (_J.C._, XXXIII.). After marriage,

"the Huron woman from a wanton became a drudge ... in
the words of Champlain, 'their women were their mules.'
The natural result followed. In every Huron town were
shrivelled hags, hideous and despised, who, in
vindictiveness, ferocity, and cruelty, far exceeded the
men."

The _Jesuit Relations_ contain many references to the merciless
treatment of their women by the Canadian Indians. "These poor women
are real pack-mules, enduring all hardships." "In the winter, when
they break camp, the women drag the heaviest loads over the snow; in
short, the men seem to have as their share only hunting, war, and
trading" (IV., 205). "The women here are mistresses and servants"
(Hurons, XV.). In volume III. of the _Jesuit Relations_ (101), Biard
writes under date of 1616:

"These poor creatures endure all the misfortunes and
hardships of life; they prepare and erect the houses,
or cabins, furnishing them with fire, wood, and water;
prepare the food, preserve the meat and other
provisions, that is, dry them in the smoke to preserve
them; go to bring the game from the place where it has
been killed; sew and repair the canoes, mend and stitch
the skins, curry them and make clothes and shoes of
them for the whole family; they go fishing and do the
rowing; in short, undertake all the work except that
alone of the grand chase, besides having the care and
so weakening nourishment of the children....

"Now these women, although they have so much trouble,
as I have said, yet are not cherished any more for it.
The husbands beat them unmercifully, and often for a
very slight cause. One day a certain Frenchman
undertook to rebuke a savage for this; the savage
answered, angrily: 'How now, have you nothing to do but
to see into my house, every time I strike my dog?'"

Surely Dr. Brinton erred grievously when he wrote, in his otherwise
admirable book, _The American Race_ (49), that the fatigues of the
Indian women were scarce greater than those of their husbands, nor
their life more onerous than that of the peasant women of Europe
to-day. Peasants in Europe work quite as hard as their wives, whereas
the Indian--except during the delightful hunting period, or in
war-time, which, though frequent, was after all merely episodic--did
nothing at all, and considered labor a disgrace to a man, fit only for
women. The difference between the European peasant and the American
red man can be inferred by anyone from what observers reported of the
Creek Indians of our Southern States (Schoolcraft, V., 272-77):

"The summer season, with the men, is devoted to war, or
their domestic amusements of riding, horse-hunting,
ball-plays, and dancing, and by the women to their
customary hard labor."

"The women perform all the labor, both in the house and
field, and are, in fact, but slaves to the men, without
any will of their own, except in the management of the
children."

"A stranger going into the country must feel distressed
when he sees naked women bringing in huge burdens of
wood on their shoulders, or, bent under the scorching
sun, at hard labor in the field, while the indolent,
robust young men are riding about, or stretched at ease
on some scaffold, amusing themselves with a pipe or a
whistle."

The excesses to which bias and unintelligent philanthropy can lead a
man are lamentably illustrated in the writings of the Moravian
missionary, Heckewelder, regarding the Delaware Indians.[218] He
argues that

"as women are not obliged to live with their husbands
any longer than suits their pleasure or convenience, it
cannot be supposed that they would submit to be loaded
with unjust or unequal burdens" (!) "Were a man to take
upon himself a part of his wife's duty, in addition to
his own [hunting (!), for the Delawares were then a
peaceful tribe], he must necessarily sink under the
load, and of course his family must suffer with him."

The heartless sophistry of this reasoning--heartless because of its
pitiless disregard of the burdens and sufferings of the poor women--is
exposed in part by his own admissions regarding the selfish actions of
the men. He does not deny that after the women have harvested their
corn or maple sugar the men arrogate the right to dispose of it as
they please. He relates that in case of a domestic quarrel the husband
shoulders his gun and goes away a week or so. The neighbors naturally
say that his wife is quarrelsome. All the odium consequently falls on
her, and when he gets back she is only too willing to drudge for him
more than ever. Heckewelder naïvely gives the Indian's recipe for
getting a useful wife:

"Indian, when he see industrious squaw, which he like,
he go to _him_ [her], place his two forefingers close
aside each other, make two look like one--see _him_
[her] smile--which is all _he_ [she] say, _yes!_ so he
take _him_ [her] home. Squaw know too well what Indian
do if _he_ [she] cross! Throw _him_ [her] away and take
another! Squaw love to eat meat! no husband! no meat!
Squaw do everything to please husband! he do same to
please squaw [??]! live happy."

When that Indian said "he do the same to please the squaw," he must
have chuckled at his own sarcasm. Heckewelder does, indeed, mention a
few instances of kindness to a wife _(e.g._, going a great distance to
get some berries which she, in a pregnant state, eagerly desired;) but
these were obviously exceptional, as I have found nothing like them in
other records of Indian life. It must be remembered that, as Roosevelt
remarks (97) these Indians, under the influence of the Moravian
missionaries, had been

"transformed in one generation from a restless, idle,
blood-thirsty people of hunters arid fishers into an
orderly, thrifty, industrious folk; believing with all their
hearts the Christian religion."

It was impossible, however, to drive out the devil entirely, as the
facts cited show, and as we may infer from what, according to Loskiel,
was true a century ago of the Delawares as well as the Iroquois:
"Often it happens that an Indian deserts his wife because she has a
child to suckle, and marries another whom he presently abandons for
the same reason." In this respect, however, the women are not much
better than the men, for, as he adds, they often desert a husband who
has no more presents to give them, and go with another who has. Truly
Catlin was right when he said that the Indians (and these were the
best of them) were "not in the least behind us in conjugal affection!"

Thus do even the apparent exceptions to Indian maltreatment of
women--which exceptions are constantly cited as illustrations of the
rule--melt away like mists when sunlight is brought to bear upon them.
One more of these exceptions, of which sly sentimentalists have made
improper use, must be referred to here. It is maintained, on the
authority of Charlevoix, that the women of the Natchez Indians
asserted their rights and privileges even above those of the men, for
they were allowed to put unfaithful husbands to death while they
themselves could have as many paramours as they pleased. Moreover, the
husband had to stand in a respectful posture in the presence of his
wife, was not allowed to eat with her, and had to salute her in the
same way as the servants. This, truly, would be a remarkable
sociological fact--if it were a fact. But upon referring to the pages
of Charlevoix (264) we find that these statements, while perfectly
true, do not refer to the Natchez women in general, but only to the
princesses, or "female suns." These were allowed to marry none but
private men; but by way of compensation they had the right to discard
their husbands whenever they pleased and take another. The other women
had no more privileges than the squaws of other tribes; whenever a
chief saw a girl he liked he simply informed the relatives of the fact
and enrolled her among the number of his wives. Charlevoix adds that
he knew of no nation in America where the women were more unchaste.
The privileges conferred on the princesses thus appear like a coarse,
topsy-turvy joke, while affording one more instance of the lowest
degradation of woman.

Summing up the most ancient and trustworthy evidence regarding Mexico,
Bandelier writes (627):

"The position of women was so inferior, they were
regarded as so far beneath the male, that the most
degrading epithet that could be applied to any Mexican,
aside from calling him a dog, was that of woman."

If a woman presumed to don a man's dress her death alone could wipe
out the dishonor.


SOUTH AMERICAN GALLANTRY

So much for the Indians of North America. The tribes of the southern
half of the continent would furnish quite as long and harrowing a tale
of masculine selfishness and brutality, but considerations of space
compel us to content ourselves with a few striking samples.

In the northern regions of South America historians say that "when a
tribe was preparing poison in time of war, its efficacy was tried upon
the old women of the tribe."[219]

"When we saw the Chaymas return in the evening from their gardens,"
writes Humboldt (I., 309),

"the man carried nothing but the knife or hatchet
(machete) with which he clears his way among the
underwood; whilst the woman, bending under a great load
of plantains, carried one child in her arms, and,
sometimes, two other children placed upon the load."

Schomburgk (II., 428) found that Caribbean women generally bore marks
of the brutal treatment to which they were subjected by the men. Brett
noted (27, 31) that among the Guiana tribes women had to do all the
work in field and home as well as on the march, while the men made
baskets, or lay indolently in hammocks until necessity compelled them
to go hunting or fishing. The men had succeeded so thoroughly in
creating a sentiment among the women that it was their duty to do all
the work, that when Brett once induced an Indian to take a heavy bunch
of plantains off his wife's head and carry it himself, the wife (slave
to the backbone) seemed hurt at what she deemed a degradation of her
husband. One of the most advanced races of South America were the
Abipones of Paraguay. While addicted to infanticide they, contrary to
the rule, were more apt to spare the female children; but their reason
for this was purely commercial. A son, they said, would be obliged to
purchase a wife, whereas daughters may be sold to a bridegroom
(Dobrizhoffer, II., 97). The same missionary relates (214) that boys
are laughed at, praised and rewarded for throwing bones, horns, etc.,
at their mothers.

"If their wives displease them, it is sufficient; they
are ordered to decamp.... Should the husband cast his
eyes upon any handsome woman the old wife must move
merely on this account, her fading form and advancing
age being her only accusers, though she may be
universally commended for conjugal fidelity, regularity
of conduct, diligent obedience, and the children she
has borne."

In Chili, among the Mapuchés (Araucanians) the females, says Smith
(214), "do all the labor, from ploughing and cooking to the saddling
and unsaddling of a horse; for the 'lord and master' does nothing but
eat, sleep, and ride about." Of the Peruvian Indians the Jesuit Pater
W. Bayer (cited Reich, 444) wrote about the middle of the eighteenth
century that wives are treated as slaves and are so accustomed to
being regularly whipped that when the husband leaves them alone they
fear he is paying attention to another woman and beg him to resume his
beating. In Brazil, we are informed by Spix and Martins (I., 381),

"the women in general are slaves of the men, being
compelled when on the march to carry everything needed,
like beasts of burden; nay, they are even obliged to
bring home from the forest the game killed by the men."

Tschndi (_R.d.S.A._, 284, 274) saw the marks of violence on many of
the Botocudo women, and he says the men reserved for themselves the
beautiful plumes of birds, leaving to the women such ornaments as
pig's claws, berries, and monkey's teeth. A peculiar refinement of
selfishness is alluded to by Burton (_H.B._, II., 49):

"The Brazilian natives, to warm their naked bodies,
even in the wigwam, and to defend themselves against
wild beasts, used to make their women keep wood burning
all night."

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 "noble 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
sexes 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]

--surpasses all understanding. It is a shameful perversion of the
truth, as all the intelligent and unbiassed 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 illustrations 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 asserts; while, _more suo_, he placidly ignores the mass of facts
which disprove his assertion 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
courtship 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 grass 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 passing to the outside, it is a refusal,
but should she continue on her trail, and pass 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 passage 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 passage 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
assertions 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,

"I married such young girls to Indians fifty or sixty
years old. At first I was deceived, because the girls
said it was their free choice, whereas, in truth, they
had been persuaded by their parents with flatteries or
threats. Afterwards I always asked the girls, and they
confessed that their father and mother had threatened
to beat them if they disobeyed."

In tribes where some freedom seems to be allowed the girls at present
there are stories or traditions indicating that such a departure from
the natural state of affairs is resented by the men. Sometimes, writes
Dorsey (260) of the Omahas,

"when a youth sees a girl whom he loves, if she be
willing, he says to her, 'I will stand in that place.
Please go thither at night.' Then after her arrival he
enjoys her, and subsequently asks her of her father in
marriage. But it was different with a girl who had been
petulant, one who had refused to listen to the suitor
at first. He might be inclined to take his revenge.
After lying with her, he might say, 'As you struck me
and hurt me, I will not marry you. Though you think
much of yourself, I despise you.' Then would she be
sent away without winning him for her husband; and it
was customary for the man to make songs about her. In
these songs the woman's name was not mentioned unless
she had been a 'minckeda,' or dissolute woman."[224]


A BRITISH COLUMBIA STORY

An odd story about a man who was so ugly that no girl would have him
is related by Boas.[225] This man was so distasteful to the girls that
if he accidentally touched the blanket of one of them she cut out the
piece he had touched. Ten times this had happened, and each time he
had gathered the piece that had been cut out, giving it to his mother
to save. Besides being so ugly, he was also very poor, having gambled
away everything he possessed, and being reduced to the necessity of
swallowing pebbles to allay the pangs of hunger. A sorcerer, however,
put a fine new head on him and told him where he would find two lovely
girls who had refused every suitor, but who would accept him. He did
so and the girls were so pleased with his beauty that they became his
wives at once and went home with him. He resumed his gambling and lost
again, but his wives helped him to win back his losses. They also said
to him:

"All the girls who formerly would have nothing to do
with you will now be eager to be yours. Pay no
attention to them, however, but repel them if they
touch you."

The girls did come to his mother, and they said they would like to be
his wives. When the mother told him this, he replied: "I suppose they
want to get back the pieces they cut out of their blankets." He took
the pieces, gave them to the girls, with taunting words, and drove
them away.


THE DANGER OF COQUETRY

The moral of this sarcastic conclusion obviously was intended to be
that girls must not show independence and refuse a man, though he be a
reckless gambler, so poor that he has to eat pebbles, and so ugly that
he needs to have a new head put on him. Another story, the moral of
which was "to teach girls the danger of coquetry," is told by
Schoolcraft (_Oneota_, 381-84). There was a girl who refused all her
suitors scornfully. In one case she went so far as to put together her
thumb and three fingers, and, raising her hand gracefully toward the
young man, deliberately open them in his face. This gesticulatory mode
of rejection is an expression of the highest contempt, and it galled
the young warrior so much that he was taken ill and took to his bed
until he thought out a plan of revenge which cured him. He carried it
out with the aid of a powerful spirit, or personal Manito. They made a
man of rags and dirt, cemented it with snow and brought it to life.
The girl fell in love with this man and followed him to the marshes,
where the snow-cement melted away, leaving nothing but a pile of rags
and dirt. The girl, unable to find her way back, perished in the
wilderness.


THE GIRL MARKET

In the vast majority of instances the Indians did not simply try to
curb woman's efforts to secure freedom of choice by intimidating her
or inventing warning stories, but held the reins so tightly that a
woman's having a will of her own was out of the question. It may be
said that there are three principal stages in the evolution of the
custom of choosing a wife. In the first and lowest stage a man casts
his eyes on a woman and tries to get her, utterly regardless of her
own wishes. In the second, an attempt is made to win at least her
good-will, while in the third--which civilized nations are just
entering--a lover would refuse to marry a girl at the expense of her
happiness. A few Indian tribes have got as far as the second stage,
but most of them belong to the first. Provided a warrior coveted a
girl, and provided her parents were satisfied with the payment he
offered, matters were settled without regard to the girl's wishes. To
avoid needless friction it was sometimes deemed wise to first gain the
girl's good-will; but this was a matter of secondary importance. "It
is true," says Smith in his book on the Indians of Chili (214),

"that the Araucanian girl is not regularly put up for
sale and bartered for, like the Oriental houris; but
she is none the less an article of merchandise, to be
paid for by him who would aspire to her hand. She has
no more freedom in the choice of her husband than has
the Circassian slave."

"Marriage with the North Californians," says Bancroft (I., 349),

"is essentially a matter of business. The young brave must