Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush "killing strangers might or might not be considered inexpedient, but it would {332} hardly be considered a crime"; killing fellow-tribesmen, on the other hand, is looked upon in a very different light.[27] The Koriaks do not regard murder as a great crime, unless it occur within their own tribe.[28] The early Aleuts considered the killing of a companion a crime worthy of death, "but to kill an enemy was quite another thing."[29] To an Aht Indian the murder of a man is no more than the killing of a dog, provided that the victim is not a member of his own tribe.[30] According to Humboldt, the natives of Guiana "detest all who are not of their family, or their tribe; and hunt the Indians of a neighbouring tribe, who live at war with their own, as we hunt game."[31] In the opinion of the Fuegians, "a stranger and an enemy are almost synonymous terms," hence they dare not go where they have no friends, and where they are unknown, as they would most likely be destroyed.[32] The Australian Black nurtures an intense hatred of every male at least of his own race who is a stranger to him, and would never neglect to assassinate such a person at the earliest moment that he could do so without risk to himself.[33] In Melanesia, also, a stranger as such was generally throughout the islands an enemy to be killed.[34] [Footnote 27: Scott Robertson, _Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush_, p. 194.] [Footnote 28: Krasheninnikoff, _op. cit._ p. 232.] [Footnote 29: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in _Tenth Census of the Untied States_, p. 155.] [Footnote 30: Sproat, _Scenes and Studies of Savage Life_, p. 152.] [Footnote 31: von Humboldt, _Personal Narrative of Travels_, v. 422.] [Footnote 32: Stirling, in _South Ammerican Missionary Magazine_, iv. 11. Bridges, in _A Voice for South America_, xiii. 210.] [Footnote 33: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 64, 85 _sq._ Mathew, in _Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales_, xviii. 398.] [Footnote 34: Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 345.]