The Soul of the Indian: An InterpretationEastman, Charles A.
Religion
The Soul of the Indian: An Interpretation
Eastman, Charles A.
Indian mythology -- North America; Indian philosophy -- North America; Indians of North America -- Religion
Nevertheless, he recognizes rights in property. To steal from one of
his own tribe would be indeed disgrace, and if discovered, the name of
“Wamanon,” or Thief, is fixed upon him forever as an unalterable stigma.
The only exception to the rule is in the case of food, which is always
free to the hungry if there is none by to offer it. Other protection
than the moral law there could not be in an Indian community, where
there were neither locks nor doors, and everything was open and easy of
access to all comers.
The property of the enemy is spoil of war, and it is always allowable to
confiscate it if possible. However, in the old days there was not much
plunder. Before the coming of the white man, there was in fact little
temptation or opportunity to despoil the enemy; but in modern times the
practice of “stealing horses” from hostile tribes has become common, and
is thought far from dishonorable.
Warfare we regarded as an institution of the “Great Mystery”--an
organized tournament or trial of courage and skill, with elaborate rules
and “counts” for the coveted honor of the eagle feather. It was held
to develop the quality of manliness and its motive was chivalric or
patriotic, but never the desire for territorial aggrandizement or the
overthrow of a brother nation. It was common, in early times, for a
battle or skirmish to last all day, with great display of daring and
horsemanship, but with scarcely more killed and wounded than may be
carried from the field during a university game of football.
The slayer of a man in battle was expected to mourn for thirty days
blackening his face and loosening his hair according to the custom. He
of course considered it no sin to take the life of an enemy, and this
ceremonial mourning was a sign of reverence for the departed spirit. The
killing in war of non-combatants, such as women and children, is partly
explained by the fact that in savage life the woman without husband or
protector is in pitiable case, and it was supposed that the spirit of
the warrior would be better content if no widow and orphans were left to
suffer want, as well as to weep.
A scalp might originally be taken by the leader of the war party only
and at that period no other mutilation was practiced. It was a small
lock not more than three inches square, which was carried only during
the thirty days’ celebration of a victory, and afterward given religious
burial. Wanton cruelties and the more barbarous customs of war were
greatly intensified with the coming of the white man, who brought
with him fiery liquor and deadly weapons, aroused the Indian’s worst
passions, provoking in him revenge and cupidity, and even offered
bounties for the scalps of innocent men, women, and children.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account