FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308  
309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   >>   >|  
m, and disappeared from view. His wife, hearing a cry, turned round, and seeing her husband's fate, sprang into the river, shrieking 'Take me also,' and dived down at the spot where she had seen the alligator sink with his prey. No persuasion could induce her to come out of the water; she swam about, diving in all the places most dreaded from being a resort of ferocious reptiles, seeking to die with her husband; at last her friends came down and forcibly removed her to their house." These stories certainly imply conjugal attachment, but is there any indication in them of affection? The Cherokee squaw mourns the impending death of her husband, which is a selfish feeling. The Californian, similarly, laments the loss of his spouse. The only thing he does is to "tar his face in mourning," and even this is regarded by the other Indians as "extraordinary" and "unprecedented." As for the woman in the third story, it is to be noted that her act is one of selfish despair, not of self-sacrifice for her husband's sake. We shall see in later chapters that women of her grade abandon themselves to suicidal impulses, not only where there is occasion for real distress, but often on the most trivial pretexts. A few days later, in all probability, that same woman would have been ready to marry another man. There is no evidence of altruistic action--action for another's benefit--in any of these incidents, and altruism is the only test of genuine affection as distinguished from mere liking, attachment, and fondness, which, as was explained in the chapter on Affection, are the products of selfishness, more or less disguised. If this distinction had been borne in mind a vast amount of confusion could have been avoided in works of exploration and the anthropological treatises based on them. Westermarck, for instance, cites on page 357 a number of authors who asserted that sexual affection, or even the appearance of it, was unknown to the Hovas of Madagascar, the Gold Coast, and Winnabah natives, the Kabyles, the Beni-Amer, the Chittagong Hill Tribes, the Ponape islanders, the Eskimo, the Kutchin, the Iroquois, and North American Indians in general; while on the next pages he cites approvingly authors who fancied they had discovered sexual affection among tribes some of whom (Australians, Andamanese, Bushmans) are far below the peoples just mentioned. The cause of this discrepancy lies not in the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308  
309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

husband

 

affection

 
sexual
 

attachment

 

selfish

 
action
 
Indians
 
authors
 

Affection

 

peoples


chapter
 

amount

 

explained

 
products
 
disguised
 
selfishness
 
fondness
 

distinction

 

liking

 
discrepancy

probability

 

evidence

 

altruistic

 

genuine

 

distinguished

 
altruism
 

incidents

 

benefit

 

mentioned

 

confusion


avoided

 

Chittagong

 
Tribes
 

Kabyles

 

natives

 

Madagascar

 

Winnabah

 
Ponape
 

islanders

 

approvingly


general

 

American

 

fancied

 

Eskimo

 

Kutchin

 
Iroquois
 
unknown
 

Westermarck

 

instance

 

Andamanese