Thursday, September 19, 2019

Human Zoos

The display of humans to other humans has taken many forms over the ages, but surely there have been few as problematic, and often degrading, as the practice of displaying human beings in zoos. The image at left is from Carl Hagenbeck's Hamburg "Tierpark" (Animal Park), and shows a group of Labrador Inuit who appeared there in the fall of 1911. The group included Nancy Columbia, whom Arctic historian Kenn Harper has aptly described as the most famous Inuk of her day; she was actually born in an Eskimo display at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, and over the course of her career appeared at well over a dozen world's fairs and expositions from Seattle to St. Louis to Madrid and Paris.

Inuit, of course, were very far from the only indigenous peoples displayed in these venues: there were Samoans, "Igarottes," Native American "Indians," Zulu warriors from "Darkest Africa," and even villages of seemingly civilized folk ("The Streets of Cairo," "Japanese Village," and so forth). In perhaps the most disturbing iteration, an "Old Plantation" was populated with African-Americans portraying themselves as slaves. And, before the era of the great expositions, all manner of smaller shows, many of just a single individual, can be traced back to Elizabethan times.

Altick's subject is London, and it's the people displayed there that are at the center of his chapter. The cause célèbre of these was Sarah Baartman, who arrived in London in 1810 and was exhibited at the Egyptian Hall. Given the sobriquet the "Hottentot Venus," her appearance was both enormously popular but also controversial, even at the time. Similar exhibits of Africans displayed as "primitives" appeared throughout the Victorian era; one of them, a group of "Zulu Kafirs" shown at Hyde-Park Corner, is among the shows referenced by Dickens in his "The Noble Savage."

The other show that caught Dickens's attention was that of George Catlin who, in his efforts to sell his paintings of native American "Indians," engaged the services of a troupe of Ojibway who had been in England for an unrelated exhibition. He brought them to the Egyptian Hall, where they performed some of their native dances and rituals, while Catlin and his assistant answered questions from the audience. This was, in a way, a step up from Catlin's earlier events, which featured tableuax vivants of white people in "redface" makeup and feathered headbands.

These types of exhibits gradually declined in number and popularity in the early twentieth century, as many nations began to ban the exploitation of their indigenous people for such purposes, Nancy Columbia, the star of her "Eskimo" troupe, enjoyed a brief career in Hollywood films, including 1911's "The Way of the Eskimo," which credited her as its screenwriter. She left show business in 1920, and lived quietly in Santa Monica, where she died in 1959.

5 comments:

  1. I previously took your Arctic Encounters connections course and, at the time, was truly shocked that human zoos were so prominent in the Victorian era. Even now, after reading it baffles me that there could be any interest in such inhumanity. I suppose, like the popularity of panoramas of places Victorians would never dream of actually visiting, human zoos were the equivalent. They were able to "view" people whom they would never come into contact with and the only contact they would have with them was inhumane.

    The fascination with these "exotic" people is disguised as an educational and cultural experience when it is rooted in ignorance and racism. A good example of that is in Charles Dickens "The Noble Savage". It makes me wonder if all Victorians thought the same way or if there were some who attending these zoos out of pure ignorance and curiosity. Dickens' description of a noble savage is absolutely shocking and reprehensible: " The noble savage sets a king to reign over him, to whom he submits his life and limbs without a murmur or question, and whose whole life is passed chin deep in a lake of blood; but who, after killing incessantly, is in his turn killed by his relations and friends, the moment a grey hair appears on his head. All the noble savage’s wars with his fellow-savages (and he takes no pleasure in anything else) are wars of extermination — which is the best thing I know of him, and the most comfortable to my mind when I look at him. He has no moral feelings of any kind, sort, or description; and his ‘mission’ may be summed up as simply diabolical." When I compare this to "Some Account of an Extraordinary Traveller", I can't help but think of the places that Mr. Booley visits and how the description of the places and sometimes of the people is so different in comparison. To Dickens and those who created these zoos, they are not people, and the only reason they are considered noble is because they are willing to betray their people to help the "civilized".

    What he considers honorable would surely not be considered such by anyone even if they are Inuit, Samoan, Native American, or Zulu. Nobility and honor are cross cultural and are defined by the same actions, whether they be white or not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Duba,

    The blatant racism in this piece is quite shocking and substantial. He spends a lot of words making it clear that these "savages" are not noble. I kept waiting for there to be a twist on it, in which Dickens turns it back around on us 'civilized folk." It was so over the top that I just couldn't imagine that he wasn't building to something.

    The third to last paragraph seems to be that turn, in which he starts comparing us to savages. He does this with the mention of the wife and dowry and despotism. These were things that certainly were part of Dicken's world. He states that we obviously do not share any of these savage characteristics, but it's clear that we do. I was glad to see that this wasn't just 2500 words of racist propaganda.

    The sentence after that paragraph does give me pause though. He writes that we have nothing to learn from the noble savage and that "his virtues are a fable; his happiness is a delusion; his nobility, nonsense". This flip back to the previous voice made we wonder if I was accurately reading the previous paragraph. But, I think one can read this as also applying to us. Our virtues are a fable, our happiness a delusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Matt,

      I was hoping for most of the read for a twist, too and I guess there was a slight one, but Dickens spent most of the piece attacking non Western "savages". I can't help but notice that the savagery he talks about in us is correlated to his wife and dowry, it's a bit strange to me. Overall, this piece was a little hard to swallow.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, there is no twist to "The Noble Savage" as there was to Mr. Booley. But I do think we should think of this in historical context; on the one side, you have those who, following Rousseau, regard humans in what they perceive as a "primitive" state as intrinsically "noble," while on the other side, there are those, following Hobbs, who regard the same state as naturally violent and immoral, capable of good only when educated, constrained, and policed. The Wikipedia has a good background article that's worth a read.

      Delete
  3. I think your point about being aware of the historical context is just as important for how we look at the human zoos. We had an interesting discussion in class about how to feel about these shows. Are they racist and exploitive, or maybe for some people these experiences had a genuinely positive effect on society by exposing people to new cultures. If we judge them by today's standards, it looks really bad, but I think it also makes it harder to see the positives. In a world with no television, radio, or even books for illiterate people, how else are they going to really experience other cultures? My guess is that the people behind these shows were not doing it for the right reason, and the whole thing seems pretty sketchy to me, but it is something to think about.

    ReplyDelete