Evidence concerning Religions of Lower Races

We have seen that some writers have denied the existence of religion among certain races or tribes, and this denial has not been confined to savages, but has also been applied to barbaric peoples well advanced in the science of agriculture, such as the Samoans and the Maori of New Zealand. A careful examination of the evidence shows us that everything depends upon the point of view, which hinges upon the mentality and enlightenment of the observer, his possession or otherwise of the critical faculty, his prejudices, and the length and nature of his sojourn among the people under discussion, apart from the subject of the definition of religion already dealt with. The range of difference in opinion is somewhat startling, extending as it does from the viewing of a primitive form of animism and fear of ill-defined supernatural beings as religion, to the famed parson of the eighteenth century who recognised no religion outside the Church of England. A much more chastened form of narrow-mindedness than the last mentioned has led to the denial of religion among barbaric peoples, and missionaries have, in the past, been specially liable to this error. The Rev. J. Buller stated that the Maori had no religion, while the Rev. R. Taylor maintained that he was a devil-worshipper; but neither had any true knowledge of native beliefs. That road page 19was closed to them for two reasons: the white man did not want to learn, the brown man had no desire to teach him.

The difficulties encountered in any attempt to understand the religion and mentality of the lower races are not grasped by many people, including some famous writers on anthropological matters. Some travellers have recognised their inability to collect precise or reliable information during a brief sojourn among such folk; others have a sublime confidence in their own powers of discernment and analysis; yet others would never become reliable collectors of ethnographic data—indeed, the writer has slowly arrived at the conclusion that but few persons are really fitted for the task, simple though it may appear.

In speaking of the religion of the Tahitians Cook writes: "Of the religion of these people we were not able to aquire any clear and consistent knowledge; we found it like the religion of most other countries, involved in mystery and perplexed with apparent inconsistencies." Again, he remarked that but few of the common people of Tahiti seemed to know much about their religious system, such knowledge being confined to the priests. Now, not only was Cook ignorant of the native tongue, but, had it been otherwise, he would have gained but little insight into native beliefs and religious practices, though even the common people possessed much curious and interesting information.

Elkington, author of The Savage South Seas, is one of the few writers who admit the difficulties alluded to above. The inconsistencies of haphazard information puzzle him; thus he writes of the Solomon-Islanders, "They believe that the Supreme Spirit is the embodiment of good, and yet in the same breath they will tell you that he becomes angry and needs that his anger should be appeased by incantations or the sacrifice of human beings." This writer need not have voyaged to the far Solomons to discover such inconsistencies; he might have studied his Bible.

Max Muller has said, "Without knowing anything of other religions, and long before they attempt any serious study of them, most people despise them, ridicule them, and condemn them." Some further remarks by the same writer are also well worth perusal: "When we come to the religion of so-called savages, the general feeling seems to be that their religion is no religion at all, but mere fetishism, totemism, spiritism, and all the rest. Much as I am interested in the so-called book-religions of the world, it has always seemed to me one of the most valuable results of a comparative study of all religions that behind these mere outworks of the religions of so-called savages, whether we call them page 20fetishism, totemism, or spiritism, there has been discovered almost always the real and indestructible stronghold of all religion, a belief in God as the Father and Ruler of the world." Professor Tylor spoke wisely when he said, "It always happens in the study of the lower races that the more means we have of understanding their thoughts, the more sense and reason do we find in them." This sapient remark well illustrates our experience in studying Maori religion and mythology. This writer has also done yeoman service in drawing attention to the advantages of corroboration when collecting data from savage or barbaric people. He might have gone a step further and emphasized the absolute necessity of corroboration in many cases. Again, the quality of verisimilitude may stand the collector in good stead; for instance, no local student of Maori technology would waste time in searching for evidences or remains of prehistoric pottery in New Zealand, when knowing that no such remains have ever been found here.

In his work on Man: Where, Whence, and Whither, David Page quotes Sir S. Baker's remark concerning a negro chief of the Upper Nile region, "one of the most active and intelligent of the chiefs," as follows: "In this naked savage there was not even a superstition upon which to found a religious feeling; there was a belief in matter, and to his understanding everything was material." This statement can only be classed as an absurdity; that a "naked savage" who is "one of the most intelligent" of a tribe should not possess even a superstition is about the last word in irrational utterances.

Lord Avebury bases his opinion that the lowest races have no religion on the evidence of "sailors, traders, and philosophers, Roman Catholic priests, and Protestant missionaries." The evidence of missionaries on the subject of other and lower types of religion is as a rule scanty and often untrustworthy, though some have done good work in collecting information as to the technology, &c., of native races. Sailors are certainly not in a position to obtain reliable data. Traders may have a better opportunity, if resident among such tribes; while philosophers in new or wild lands are assuredly few and far between. The above writer maintains that the beliefs and practices of the lowest races represent superstition, not religion; the deities are evil, not good—they are mortal, and require bloody sacrifices, often human sacrifice; in short, the whole is of this world, not of the next. Now, in the first place, we know that superstitions page 21enter into all religions, even the most advanced, and the gods of lower races have two aspects in many cases: they are helpful and protective if properly conciliated, but terrible and punitive if neglected, or insulted by some offence, such as infringement of the laws of tapu. As for being mortal, in many cases they are not so, but here again it depends on the point of view. The gods of a people of high culture may disappear or be forgotten: where now are Osiris and Merodach? Human and other sacrifices are continued far up the scale, and worthy Jephthah was saturated with superstition when he essayed to cut his daughter's throat to please the Lord. Many, if not all, of these savages believe in the life of the spirit after the death of the body, and we await proof that they have no belief in a spirit-world. It can also be shown that peoples of low culture may believe in the existence of both good and evil gods, though the former are not so persistently placated, perhaps not at all, because they are not malignant. This writer also stresses the fact that the spirit-world of lower races is merely a better earth, not a heaven; that their ghosts are mortal (whatever that may mean), and that the religious theories of savages are rarely if ever the result of deep thought. Max Muller has shown, in his Anthropological Religion, that he did not believe there exists a people with no form of religion.

Tylor holds that the existence of peoples destitute of religion is not proven, and comments on the paucity of reliable information concerning such folk referred to by some writers. He goes on to quote a number of cases in which so-called religionless tribes have been shown to possess a system of beliefs and practices, occasionally by the very men who denied the existence of such. Another excellent remark refers to the fact that many persons so heartily despise all inferior faiths that they decline to study or even recognize them. Marett has truly said that at first sight one is apt to see nothing but absurdities in savage custom and religion; but he came to the conclusion that any and every custom, in so far as it is regarded as lucky, is a religious rite. By "luck" he seems to imply the sacred customs so affected by imagination as to become the sole source of confidence. His final assumption is that, with all its drawbacks, the religion of a human society, if the latter be a going concern, is always something to be respected. Quite so; for it enters into all departments of activity among lower races, and often is the principal cohesive agent. Above all, this writer enlarges on the necessity for a thorough knowledge of the language of the savage or barbarian, and for gaining his confidence, ere attempting to study and explain his mentality. Such a worker, if possessed of the necessary qualities, page 22may yet cast light on certain customs or beliefs unexplainable by those who practise them, and show us how all religious systems are linked together along certain lines.