ides with one or the other and civil war ensued. The experience of
these quarrels and of blood revenge produced "a reluctance to enter into
quarrels which entailed consequences so disastrous, and hence a society
living in general peace and honesty." The situation, however, was
unstable, and once or twice a year they had grand fights in which the
entire village participated by way of clearing off all old scores.
Evidently they had no adequate government or administration of justice.
Revenge is still, in case of a murder, "a sacred duty, never to be
neglected or forgotten," although English rule has modified the old
usages and may bring those people into a better political organization.
Revenge is still a kin affair, not a civil affair. It is handed down
from generation to generation, including innocent victims, women and
children, and devastating whole villages. It becomes fanatical and men
will sacrifice their most serious interests to it. If the male kinsmen
die out or are unable to keep up the feud, others may be hired to
fulfill the duty.[1740]

+547. Blood revenge in ethnography.+ The Eskimo have no civil
organization outside of the family. All justice depends on the
immediate coercion of wrongdoers by force. Hence death often
results. Retaliation is the sacred duty of every kinsman.[1741]
That the deceased was in the wrong is quite immaterial. Blood
revenge was almost universal amongst the American aborigines. In
some tribes the stage had been reached where it was set aside by
compensation.[1742] Amongst the Brazilian tribes it was a
question to be decided in each case whether retaliation should be
executed against the wrongdoer only or against all his kin.[1743]
The Arawaks practiced blood revenge, like nature peoples, as late
as 1830. Generally the cases were those of jealousy and
adultery.[1744] The Australians of Victoria kill the elder
brother of a murderer or his father. If these are not living they
kill him. He is not allowed to defend himself. In some tribes the
nearest relative of the murdered must take the life of a
tribesman of the murderer. All deaths are attributed to human
agency, and it is ascertained by divination to what tribe the
murderer belonged. Public opinion enforces the duty of blood
revenge. Any one who should neglect it would be despised.[1745]
The Dyaks keep an account current of the number of lives which
one tribe "owes"