What would a zoo exhibit for humans look like?

[FunkyGibbon]

It did not discriminate on grounds of age, it suggested those two age groups as examples.

I think it is quite clear that your original example did discriminate by only choosing two age groups:

I named ‘teens’ and ‘twenties’ as those groups in general would have less health problems than senior people

Try putting this in a company document justifying a policy of not hiring over-fifties and see how far your "I'm not discriminating based on age" argument gets you.

Anyway, to redirect this thread back to its original purpose. It would be good to see people take this at face value and give a constructive reply to @Corax by sharing their ideas.

At face value, I think this thread, if not ill-advised, certainly raises some difficult and problematic questions, and stands in the long shadow of a pretty ugly past that is by no means confined to zoos. I think it is constructive to discuss those questions and acknowledge the potential controversies, particularly so they avoided.

EDIT:
I reread this the second I posted it and I recognise I'm coming across as combative. That's not my intention, I'm just trying to make serious, reasonable points. Maybe try reading this in a slightly earnest tone of voice?

 

[Giant Panda]

I think it is quite clear that your original example did discriminate by only choosing two age groups:


Try putting this in a company document justifying a policy of not hiring over-fifties and see how far your "I'm not discriminating based on age" argument gets you.

My interpretation of the issue here is not that an inoffensive human zoo (even one exhibiting different cultures) is inherently inconceivable, but that it would be practically impossible given the history of such exhibitions. For instance, EPCOT would be my ideal inoffensive human zoo, but as soon as you called it Disney's Human Zoo, it would become offensive. As such, given that there's no history of zoo exhibits centred on age-based discrimination (that I know of at least), I don't see the issue. Or rather I do, but I don't think it's equivalent to the potential for racism in this context. I would also counter your employability point, on ZooFan's behalf, by suggesting that any employer who treated a thirteen year old staff member identically to a twenty year old staff member (eg. in hours worked) would face a similarly hefty lawsuit.

 

[FunkyGibbon]

As such, given that there's no history of zoo exhibits centred on age-based discrimination (that I know of at least), I don't see the issue. Or rather I do, but I don't think it's equivalent to the potential for racism in this context.

All true. I was merely pointing out what I felt to be hypocrisy by ZooFan.

I would also counter your employability point, on ZooFan's behalf, by suggesting that any employer who treated a thirteen year old staff member identically to a twenty year old staff member (eg. in hours worked) would face a similarly hefty lawsuit.

If you want to extend ageism to include adultism then we can, but I'm sure we'd agree that adapting current laws to allow for child labour under the grounds of equality would be a regressive step
Otherwise I'll just sit on the legal difference between adult and child, and the obvious reasons why we treat children differently.

 

[SealPup]

Given the rather shameful history of human exhibitions in zoos I'm not sure this thread can go to many good places.

The history of "human zoos" (misnamed: people were not captives) is tragic because the human exhibits were exposed to pathogens. Fuegians and such often died with no forewarning to them as they were recruited. However they were not zoos and the exhibits were free to go.

In context they must be viewed as closer to open air museums not zoos: though in the 19th and early 20th C public zoos themselves were legitimised by analogy to museums not fairgrounds or conservation centers. Everything written about "human zoos" is out of historical context and at times includes lies such as Hagenbeck trading in humans: which would have been illegal at the time. Or singling out Ota Benga's treatment as though it was typical. It wasn't. The typical Ethnographic exhibit featured authentic natives replicating traditional cultural activities for a crowd as a mixture of entertainment and education.

And at the same time public zoos themselves were breaking away from travelling menagerie with their accompanying ethnographic and human freak exhibits (often fraudulent). Ethnographic displays with an educational basis were the same process: this is why people today refer to them as zoos despite the lack of captivity, a definiting characteristic of zoo collections, and why interest in both overlapped.

TLDR: in retrospect the crimes of the human zoo were irresponsibility not racist malice. And the concept evolved into the open air museum.

 

[Ned]

Returning to my original comment, the designers of all-inclusive hotels, or more correctly resorts, are basically designing human enclosures aimed at keep humans relaxed and contented for a week or two. For example they have to consider the sleeping quarters, feeding regime and enrichment activities.
The humans are provided with private and secure sleeping quarters. These become a temporary territory to which the individuals have elusive access. Humans are loosely monogamous, some bring more so than other, males will often act aggressively towards other makes found in their sleeping quartered, females are also likely to be non-too happy at discovering other females in this exclusive area.
Humans are possessive about objected they consider to be of value and will keep these items in their sleeping quarters hence the need for the area to be secure.
The feeding regime can be enriched by providing variety and themed eating areas. Some humans enjoy formality and will show ritualized behaviours. These humans like formal settings called restaurants in which to eat. females preen themselves before eating so as to look attractive to their mate, while males may also preen themselves but more out of an obligation to make an effort for the female. Other humans prefer a more relaxed feeding environment such as a poolside bar where there is less ritual around feeding.
Enrichment centres around a lake or lagoon known as a "pool", these are often landscaped with mock rockwork, exotic planting and a Waterfall. Children especially enjoy the lagoon. There maybe training sessions in which humans are rewarded for taking part or being the best at an activity. Some of these are to promote health and are known as sports, others are to promote bonding and lessen aggression by encouraging fun. The latter may take place on a stage in the evening after the humans have consumed alcohol. However, if too much alcohol is consumed the sleeping quarters might not be so jealously guarded as an area exclusive to the couple.
Whilst the adults are recovering from last nights fun, their children can be sent off with responsible members of the keeping staff to be entertained for an hour or two.
The moral of the story being that if you want to get into designing human enclosures, get into the holiday industry.

 

[Ned]

The history of "human zoos" (misnamed: people were not captives) is tragic because the human exhibits were exposed to pathogens. Fuegians and such often died with no forewarning to them as they were recruited. However they were not zoos and the exhibits were free to go.

In context they must be viewed as closer to open air museums not zoos: though in the 19th and early 20th C public zoos themselves were legitimised by analogy to museums not fairgrounds or conservation centers. Everything written about "human zoos" is out of historical context and at times includes lies such as Hagenbeck trading in humans: which would have been illegal at the time. Or singling out Ota Benga's treatment as though it was typical. It wasn't. The typical Ethnographic exhibit featured authentic natives replicating traditional cultural activities for a crowd as a mixture of entertainment and education.

And at the same time public zoos themselves were breaking away from travelling menagerie with their accompanying ethnographic and human freak exhibits (often fraudulent). Ethnographic displays with an educational basis were the same process: this is why people today refer to them as zoos despite the lack of captivity, a definiting characteristic of zoo collections, and why interest in both overlapped.

TLDR: in retrospect the crimes of the human zoo were irresponsibility not racist malice. And the concept evolved into the open air museum.

Bristol Zoo recently had children of the Zulu people performing traditional dances whilst dressed up in furs and brandishing spears. The children were on a European tour raising money for their school. I couldn't help but think of Hargenbeck and wondered if anyone found it inappropriate? I disassociated the performs from the setting and found it very enjoyable. The children were very good.

 

[Zoofan15]

Try putting this in a company document justifying a policy of not hiring over-fifties and see how far your "I'm not discriminating based on age" argument gets you.

Who said anything about not hiring over-fifties? As I’ve already explained, it was just an example. The next two groups could indeed be 50s and 80s. What you call ‘discrimination’ is actually a common practice in television, where it is called recruitment to suit a role. By casting an African American actor to play Chris Rock’s father in the sitcom ‘Everybody Hates Chris’, was it discrimination or racism they didn’t consider Caucasian actors? Of course not. In reality shows like Big Brother, is it discrimination or ageism they chose young people to occupy the Big Brother house? No.

 

[Zoofan15]

I reread this the second I posted it and I recognise I'm coming across as combative. That's not my intention, I'm just trying to make serious, reasonable points. Maybe try reading this in a slightly earnest tone of voice?

Fair enough, you're certaintly entitled to your opinion @FunkyGibbon. I'd just like to reiterate that @Corax did specifically mention in the opening post that this topic was for fun. I feel this has been over shadowed by ethical debates which was clearly not the original intention of the poster. I wouldn't say the thread is ill-advised and agree debate of ethical issues is no bad thing, but perhaps they could be enjoyed on a post dedicated to heavier issues, instead of what was originally a light hearted post.

 

[FunkyGibbon]

It seems obvious to me it was discrimination, just like it seems obvious to you that it wasn't. I don't think this is particularly enlightening discussion, and probably we can leave it there.

Fair enough, you're certaintly entitled to your opinion @FunkyGibbon. I feel this has been over shadowed by ethical debates which was clearly not the original intention of the poster. I wouldn't say the thread is ill-advised and agree debate of ethical issues is no bad thing, but perhaps they could be enjoyed on a post dedicated to heavier issues, instead of what was originally a light hearted post.

Given that the original objection made by @CGSwans was in part to the fact that this was a topic being treated in a light-hearted way when it shouldn't be, I think bringing that up in the thread was the right thing to do.In fact you have phrased the point of contention quite nicely: is it possible to get out of the shadow of ethical debate when discussing humans in a zoo exhibit? Some say yes, some say no, and some say we can discuss it within the shade.

 

[Zoofan15]

I don't think this is particularly enlightening discussion, and probably we can leave it there.

That's one thing we can both agree on! Thank you for sharing your opinion though, it's always interesting to hear what others think.

 

[Zoofan15]

I’m surprised nobody has pointed out that society provides us with numerous examples of humans acting like animals. From a high school lunch hall, reminiscent of feeding time at the zoo, to the Black Friday sales, a fascinating insight as to how far we’ve come as a species.

 

[SealPup]

Bristol Zoo recently had children of the Zulu people performing traditional dances whilst dressed up in furs and brandishing spears. The children were on a European tour raising money for their school. I couldn't help but think of Hargenbeck and wondered if anyone found it inappropriate? I disassociated the performs from the setting and found it very enjoyable. The children were very good.

Nothing inappropriate at all. Just open air museums plus ethnography, they were ambassadors of Zulu culture. At Titicaca the Uros Indians put on a similar show.

 

[Jurek7]

The history of "human zoos" (misnamed: people were not captives) is tragic because the human exhibits were exposed to pathogens. Fuegians and such often died with no forewarning to them as they were recruited. However they were not zoos and the exhibits were free to go.

Transmissible diseases were fact of life in the early 20. century. Anybody travelling took this risk, including Hagenbeck's own team whenever they traveled to exotic countries. There is no indication that Hagenbeck willingly hid or cheated any of his showmen /folklore troops about it.

Apparently these exhibitions are doomed for misunderstanding in modern times, much as many people think that Shakespeare considered fairies to be real, people in the Middle Ages thought that Earth is flat and so on.

 

[SealPup]

Transmissible diseases were fact of life in the early 20. century. Anybody travelling took this risk, including Hagenbeck's own team whenever they traveled to exotic countries. There is no indication that Hagenbeck willingly hid or cheated any of his showmen /folklore troops about it.

Apparently these exhibitions are doomed for misunderstanding in modern times, much as many people think that Shakespeare considered fairies to be real, people in the Middle Ages thought that Earth is flat and so on.

Yes but as we see from Amazon tribes such as the Parana (Kreen Akrore), indigenous folk have low immunities and low population sizes. Though Hagenbeck and co should not be accused of racism or slavery(!) they were irresponsible to indigenous human lives. A very high percentage of visitors from Terra del Fuego died in Western countries. This at least is a black mark on that period of "edutainment" history though the concept was morally sound.

 

[15399]

While I am not advocating for keeping humans in zoos and certainly don't support this idea, I was wondering what a theoretical human habitat in a zoo would look like. How big would it be? How many humans would live in one habitat? What kinds of enrichment would be given? Do you think humans would be kept outside or inside? What other challenges would be faced exhibiting humans?

 

[chaotic_froggie]

Would humans be keeping the habitat or some other (presumably more intelligent) species?

 

[15399]

Would humans be keeping the habitat or some other (presumably more intelligent) species?

Either way. I'd presume it's more likely some sort of extraterrestrial, more intelligent species in a zoo Exhibit about Earth wildlife, although it could just as easily be humans keeping it.

 

[evilmonkey239]

I’d say...
1. Probably a high, unscalable wall for the barrier as opposed to something like a chain link fence that we could easily climb. Alternatively or in addition to a moat too wide for most humans to jump over. It probably wouldn’t take too strong a glass viewing window to keep us in, assuming we were unable to get ahold of any weapons that allowed us to break it.
2. If we were properly cared for, we would be given indoor access whenever the temperature fell below I’m guessing around 55-60 degrees Fahrenheit. If we didn’t have the appropriate clothing, humans would probably never be allowed outside during the winter months.
3. A multitude of enrichment items would be necessary to prevent us from getting bored. Maybe if the aliens or whoever was keeping the humans really studied us, we’d get stuff like sports equipment and board games. Food would probably also be hidden around the enclosure to give us a challenge in finding our meals.
4. I’d imagine the physical habitat as being mostly an open, grassy yard. Maybe we’d get some climbing structures to use like our great ape cousins. Perhaps they’d also give us pools to cool off in on hot summer days, I doubt anything too big.
5. Finally, depending on the size of the habitat, I’d image anywhere from 3-8 adult humans would usually be kept together. We’d be in male and female bachelor groups if they didn’t want us breeding, but otherwise mixed-sex groups would probably be common seeing as we don’t naturally have a strong gender-based social structure. We would be taken off show when expecting offspring, and perhaps not isolated from each other when doing so if our keepers realized how we tend to assist each other in delivering babies.
Well, I had quite a bit to say. I’ll admit that I’ve thought about this concept a little bit before and specifically how it would apply to me, what kinds of stuff I’d like in my enclosure and what kinds of stuff I’d be most likely to actually get. I look forward to seeing any responses this post may get.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

This thread subject reminds me of that old twilight zone episode "People are alike all over":

Given the current state of popular culture I'm sure the "enrichment" for humans would include facebook / twitter, mindless reality tv shows on tap and unnecessary kitsch consumer goods and / or junk food thrown into the enclosure by keepers on a regular basis.

Maybe to keep the inhabitants from questioning their captivity it would be necessary to create some kind of religious ideology / mythology like that created for the captive humanoid "Craker" creatures in the sci-fi book by Margaret Atwood "Oryx and Crake".

Probably wouldn't be a big deal for humans to get used to the loss of privacy through being viewed by visitors as they already live in an AI surveillance capitalism driven world anyway and seem complacent about relinquishing their rights to privacy and dignity anyway.

Could be an interesting mixed species exhibit with dog breeds like chihuahuas / pugs / Pekinese to showcase how bizarre the human relationship with the animal kingdom is through domestication of other species.

 

[15399]

I’d say...
1. Probably a high, unscalable wall for the barrier as opposed to something like a chain link fence that we could easily climb. Alternatively or in addition to a moat too wide for most humans to jump over. It probably wouldn’t take too strong a glass viewing window to keep us in, assuming we were unable to get ahold of any weapons that allowed us to break it.
2. If we were properly cared for, we would be given indoor access whenever the temperature fell below I’m guessing around 55-60 degrees Fahrenheit. If we didn’t have the appropriate clothing, humans would probably never be allowed outside during the winter months.
3. A multitude of enrichment items would be necessary to prevent us from getting bored. Maybe if the aliens or whoever was keeping the humans really studied us, we’d get stuff like sports equipment and board games. Food would probably also be hidden around the enclosure to give us a challenge in finding our meals.
4. I’d imagine the physical habitat as being mostly an open, grassy yard. Maybe we’d get some climbing structures to use like our great ape cousins. Perhaps they’d also give us pools to cool off in on hot summer days, I doubt anything too big.
5. Finally, depending on the size of the habitat, I’d image anywhere from 3-8 adult humans would usually be kept together. We’d be in male and female bachelor groups if they didn’t want us breeding, but otherwise mixed-sex groups would probably be common seeing as we don’t naturally have a strong gender-based social structure. We would be taken off show when expecting offspring, and perhaps not isolated from each other when doing so if our keepers realized how we tend to assist each other in delivering babies.
Well, I had quite a bit to say. I’ll admit that I’ve thought about this concept a little bit before and specifically how it would apply to me, what kinds of stuff I’d like in my enclosure and what kinds of stuff I’d be most likely to actually get. I look forward to seeing any responses this post may get.

1. I agree those would work, although I think a glass window might be ideal.
2. I agree either appropriate clothing or indoor access is necessary. Humans would need to be treated similar to other "tropical" species.
3. Enrichment might be the biggest challenge for keeping humans. I think electronic enrichment is a real possibility, but if a zoo wouldn't want that then any sort of puzzle-type enrichment to increase brain use.
4. A grassy yard could work.
5. That sounds like an adequate social group.