Houston Zoo Cultural Zoo Exhibits = Racist?

[Blackduiker]

I was just responding to his "1865" crack, yet forgetting the entire 20Th century. And In my previous post, I was just commenting on how touchy this particular topic can get. Lord knows I did not want to start a rant of past injustices, and dwell on a subject I didn't join this forum to harp upon. And by the way ANyhuis, I am also in possession of your book and am a huge fan of it. I even own an autographed copy of your earlier work on zoos I purchased many years ago. I don't know, maybe Sun Wukong had a bad experience at one of the Disney parks as a small child, like going too high on the Dumbo ride or something.

 

[redpanda]

With all due respect for my friend, I don't think this is just a passing fad. I think this is the wave of the future for successful zoos. The truth is that zoos need money to survive, and to thrive, and they won't get that money if they don't attract visitors. These kinds of cultural exhibits have been enormously successful in attracting large crowds to zoos.

Then you are sadly mistaken. Remember those human zoos at the start of this thread, well many people who visited them believed they were the way forward, yet if anyone tried opening one now they would be arrested. Same with other current "trends", landscape immersion for example. As early as the 1860's and 70's, zoos like Philadelphia were creating natural habitats in which visitors were placed. A good example of this was the beaver pond, which was traversed on a small bridge. However, visitor complaints that they could not see thse animals led to the barred cages and so-called "bathroom" era of zoo design (actually, this has been mirrored more recently by CLR's "activity-based design" leading away from landscape immersion). As such, pretty much everything in zoos (besides the animals themselves) is in fact "just a fad" and so I think it's fair to assume that cultural resonance is also.

 

[ANyhuis]

maybe Sun Wukong had a bad experience at one of the Disney parks as a small child, like going too high on the Dumbo ride or something.

Not gonna comment -- just gonna laugh out loud!!

pretty much everything in zoos (besides the animals themselves) is in fact "just a fad" and so I think it's fair to assume that cultural resonance is also.

You might be right, but I hope not.

 

[Jurek7]

What do you all think?

Like Sun Wukong, I think that mostly some people are showing off their ignorance and misplaced political correctness.

And if I object to cultural theming it is because it is false, naive exoticism which has nothing to do with real Africa or Asia.

The theory is nonsense because zoos are full of Western theming too. North American animals are often presented with mock Wild West traper-style theming. Outback Australian theming is also common. And East Asian theme parks are full of recreated Western things which are interesting and exotic for Chinese or Japanese. For example, in Beijing zoo you can rent a dog for a walk.

 

[Jurek7]

Remember those human zoos at the start of this thread, well many people who visited them believed they were the way forward, yet if anyone tried opening one now they would be arrested.

Human zoos are still common and popular. They are called folkloristic shows.

When Hagenbeck et al. showed non-European cultures, these people arrived on paid contracts which were fair for a general conditions of entertainment contract of the time. Zoos at that time aspired to show all things of the world: animals, plants, minerals and people. One exhibit not found in zoos today is a mock cave with interesting minerals set in.

This trend is continued by modern big museums. They show cultural artefacts next to animals, plant and minerals.

I wonder if activists would criticise American Museum of Natural History because it includes Huns, cowboys and space explorers. Is it somehow belittling for a space explorer?

 

[Sun Wukong]

I acknowledge Shirokuma's wish to stay on topic and will thus keep my reply short & simple.

@Jurek7: Thanks for your words of wisdom.
@redpanda: Believe it or not: I agree with you!
@Blackduiker: Slavery in the US as such ended officially in 1865. So you can't speak of any "recent scars" caused by this, no matter how much you try to magnify the importance of the nevertheless dispicable racial segregation.
Half of my family had to suffer for decades under compulsory expropriation of their possession and constant suppression by the back then government, the reason being of the "wrong social class". My father was discriminated, blackmailed and policed for this reason for many decades of his life, while my mother was discriminated in a very similar way to your personal experiences as an African American only for her religion. So much of my family's history to someone that had no better argument than to try to defame me. As you can see, everyone has one's own cross to bear. And believe it or not: the USA are not the only country with a troubled, "deeply scarred" history, no matter how much the Epcot Center might portray a different image of the world to some naives.
Yes, you can complain as much as you want, if it makes you merry and happy-as long as you do not violate others('s freedom) by doing so. But don't ask for double standards. Funny enough, it's always certain minorties lamenting the most and loudest, while others, who also endured suffering, don't make such a fuss. As you claim to be more adept in American history than I am, you might have heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and maybe also about the severe discrimination of Asians (and other minorities) in US history. Yet I haven't heard of any Asian-American groups protesting against the many Asian-themed zoo exhibits as loudly and aggressively as the African-American groups mentioned here...

"Sun Wukong has made it abundantly clear here that he hates Disney, so it's not at all shocking that he would react this way. If you want to be subject to Sun's insults, the quickest way is to say something pro-Disney."

Bah, the usual artifically hyperbolized bashing of someone who disagrees with @ANyhuis. Not all too original, just like the usual silly monkeying of certain expressions of mine. It appears that the quickest way to get attacked by Mr. ANyhuis is to animadvert Disney-and by contradicting his POV on anything. A little bit too predictable, isn't it?
You might have forgotten (maybe as a result of flying too often and too high with the infamous Dumbo ride...), but I already wrote in another thread what I don't like about the Disney company as such:
I do not like the "factitiousness and "ideal world" masquerade [portrayed by the company], which stands in direct contrast to how this particular company is actually run."
There are products of The Walt Disney Company, such as several of their movies, that I highly appretiate; I'm not so fond, however, about the company's modus operandi.
Thank you for keeping this in mind till we clash again the next time.

 

[Blackduiker]

Blackduiker

So Sun Wukong, what's your point? That others have suffered discrimination in the past? I'm very aware and sympathetic to that, as I mentioned my distaste of hatred against any one group, whatever their race, class, or religion. I think I've made that quite clear. But that would also include African-Americans; one group that you seem to disdain. And I only spoke of the right to protest, not that I was in agreement with the outcry against the new exhibit in Houston. Which I personally am not! And your comment about "defame me" sounds like your initial "1865" crack that totally denies any need of the Civil Rights Movement during a huge chunk of the 20Th century; which by the way, created freedoms for all classes and races here; yes, including those of Asian decent. I don't see where exactly you want to go with this, but I could get much more gruesome in details of lynchings, the KKK, burnings, race riots, rapes, and beatings. That went on for over 100 years after your "1865" obsession. But this really isn't the place. And yes, that's happened to many other races, classes, and religions as well in many lands, and continues to this day. But don't single out one group that you've seemingly grown tired of, when others continue to remind of their sufferings, past and present, as well. There's still enough hatred out there to keep the world's news agencies quite busy.

"Funny enough, it's always certain minorities lamenting the most and loudest, while others who also endured suffering, don't make such a fuss." Quoted from Sun Wukong. And who are some of these Sun Wukong? Jews lamenting the Holocaust? Hispanics lamenting immigration policies? Armenians lamenting past genocides under the Turks? Hindus against Moslems? Moslems against Christians? Didn't I mention the unjust treatment of Jews under Germans, or Chinese under Japanese, or Africans under African oppression? Oh. Maybe it's those African-Americans who refuse to shut up that tick you off? Because as soon as I used those magic words concerning myself, you seemed to go on the attack. I think that's the one group you seem to be referring to. I think you have a problem with them ever speaking out. Well, you know what Sun Wukong? I don't think you're going to hear them shut up anytime soon. And though others call that being "politically correct" for them to do so, that's still their right in this great nation that they helped to build; brick-by-brick, and after fighting in every war for this nation since George Washington crossed the Delaware. Now, can we get back to discussing zoos. Because I didn't join this forum for this!

 

[Sun Wukong]

So Sun Wukong, what's your point?

My point is that we are all humans, with equal access to common sense; and the more we try to seperate ourselves into different groups that consider themselves more (self-)important than the others, and that claim special treatment for themselves, also by making mountains out of molehills and behaving disproportionately touchy, the more we lose track of this important aspect that unites us all.

But that would also include African-Americans; one group that you seem to disdain.

No, I neither disdain African-Americans nor do I privilege them; I treat them like I treat members of all other ethnic groups, i.e. by the individual.

"lynchings, the KKK, burnings, race riots, rapes, and beatings"...unfortunately, that's the usual, all-too-often heard common response, just like branding anyone critical as a "racist in disguse". This attitude and the monotonous beating of long dead historic horses again and again won't get us anywhere-and will only fuel the hatred you mentioned, instead of finally finding common ground. That's why I quoted Morgan Freeman-because I think it's more important and helpful to consider oneself "American" (or rather, human) first of all, instead of thumping on ethnic backgrounds and past events.
There are plenty of other groups worth to be added to your list (like Christian minorities in Muslim countries, Japanese-Americans during WW2 etc.)-but what shall this prove? That a lot of harm has been done so far, and that some groups are more vocal in calling attention to themselves? Gee, what a surprise.

not that I was in agreement with the outcry against the new exhibit in Houston. Which I personally am not!

The most judicious statement so far. And I agree with you-we should "get back to discussing zoos."

 

[geomorph]

I think cultural theming in relation to zoo exhibits is useful in several ways. It can augment the presentation of challenges and triumphs for wildlife that is impacted by close proximity to human settlement and activity. It can act as a gateway to the subject of wildlife for visitors who have difficulty relating to it without a human facet. It can set the stage for exhibit complexes that aim to transport visitors to another place, especially if the zoo is located in a region where plants of the intended destination do not grow. It can act as a screen for some of the utilitarian necessities of modern animal exhibitry, softening their visual impact (such as viewing shelters that look like regional structures rather than urban bus shelters). These are all worthwhile aims, but of course the outcomes can be very different. I have been recalling the cultural theming of many zoos I have visited and none of them seemed to be racist, although many did not seem to be seriously focused on complete and accurate portrayals of specific cultures. I think critics who feel these exhibits are racist may have their most convincing argument in the fact that the zoos trot out the theming without seriously explaining it in many cases. Ultimately, I do not want to see the educational focus and resources of zoos expand greatly to include human cultures, so perhaps it is better that zoos avoid their inclusion if it means enduring attacks due to their limited or skewed presentations.

ANyhuis has made an accurate observation in the fact that cultural theming in zoos is not limited to non-white cultures. In fact, my own observations from the mostly-North American 55 zoos I have visited include the fact that the most common cultural theming here is predominately white North American! Specifically, the family farm of North America. It may be idealized (when was the last time you saw a factory farm-themed area in a zoo?), but it certainly does not seem racist. As an urban dweller, I do not get offended that visitors from other countries leave the zoo thinking that they have seen the way I live after they have experienced the farm. In fact, I give them more intellectual credit, knowing that they know that there are a variety of cultures in my continent and country, and that the generalized portrayal of one does not attempt to negate the existence of the others.

After North America in North American zoos, the next most common culturally-themed exhibit elements are sub-Saharan Africa. Asia and South America follow that, fairly evenly represented between them. Australia is next. Saharan Africa and the Middle East are infrequently portrayed, as are the Pacific islands. Probably least often portrayed is Europe. It is interesting that this curve follows the general frequency and availability of large animals in North American collections. It is curious that older cultures are generally avoided in the North American and Australian models, while they are more frequently addressed in exhibits that focus on the other places.

Some other observations follow. A majority of cultural themes do not portray the present; however, their visions of the past vary from idyllic harmony with nature to smoldering ruins of dead cultures seemingly overtaken by it. A major component of many culturally-themed exhibits deals not with the local inhabitants but rather with presumed vagrants: researchers. Research tents and camps and shelters, and their associated props, are often portrayed. However, the hero-status that is often implied is rarely contrasted with any implications that the regional inhabitants are evil animal-haters. Another tiny subset of cultural theming is the use of fantasy: a few have live animals from real places displayed in fictitious environments. Is this the way of the future, to provide exotic architectural detail for attraction and containment without stepping on cultural toes?

 

[Sun Wukong]

ANyhuis has made an accurate observation in the fact that cultural theming in zoos is not limited to non-white cultures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Jurek7 who made this valid observation...

"The theory is nonsense because zoos are full of Western theming too. North American animals are often presented with mock Wild West traper-style theming. Outback Australian theming is also common."

Give credit where credit is due.

 

[Shirokuma]

but it certainly does not seem racist.

That's because it isn't. An idealised/stereotypical presentation of an aspect of one's own society is completely different to a display of another culture and it doesn't have the same emotional and political baggage which is involved in a presentation involving for example African or Asian cultures.

Compare it with a native American themed display, there's no doubt in my mind that this would present a more complex challenge than a storybook presentation of an all-American barnyard and that a great many sensitivities would need to be taken into account.

 

[Zooplantman]

It is curious that older cultures are generally avoided in the North American and Australian models, while they are more frequently addressed in exhibits that focus on the other places...

A majority of cultural themes do not portray the present; however, their visions of the past vary from idyllic harmony with nature to smoldering ruins of dead cultures seemingly overtaken by it.

If I read the original article correctly this is exactly the issue.
What is entertainment to those with no cultural or historical ties to these locales is offensive to those who feel identity or ownership of them.

It is also why I feel that this specific sort of exhibitry is bad conservation education and questionable - at best - education of any kind.

I certainly don't oppose "cultural" aspects of exhibits. But some make sense and many do not. Some are good, some are stupid, and a few are stupidly thoughtless. In any case, the zoos and designers are setting the bar too low

 

[ANyhuis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Jurek7 who made this valid observation...

Give credit where credit is due.

The above article says "Zoo exhibits that teach about non-Whites, replicating their villages among animal habitats, are called 'human zoos'." Further down, the author says, "Whites are never showcased in zoos". The bottom line is, she is absolutely wrong. In my response (see the article), I pointed out that Minnesota's new Russia's Grizzly Coast exhibit shows Russian culture -- and Russians are primarily white. Fort Worth's Texas Wild! exhibit includes a fantastic Texas town, showcasing the culture of (white) Texans from the late 1800s. The same could be pointed out with the major Australian exhibits.

Seems like it's YOUR turn to admit your error, Sun. Are you even able to?

 

[Sun Wukong]

Thanks for following my advice and correcting me. Indeed, ashes on my head for such a terrible, terrible mistake. Yet what should the "even" implicate?

 

[Hungrytroll]

In my opinion, and I think most zoo designers would agree, a zoo's purpose is not solely to "display animals", it is to showcase animals in their natural surroundings, and educate the visitors. Sure, there will always be those who go to zoos just to look at the tigers, but I think many diehard zoo fans want to not only view the animals, but to learn more about them and the habitat they naturally occupy. African tribes are a part of that landscape, and much can be learned from the human-animal interactions in the area.

 

[Zooplantman]

African tribes are a part of that landscape, and much can be learned from the human-animal interactions in the area.

Indeed, but how many of those tribes' members live in grass huts today? Many, yes, but there is so much more going on.
The bush meat trade, as one example, is not primarily about quaint hut dwellers... and yet it is a story that needs to be told and zoo visitors need to become engaged.

In Bronx Zoo's Congo Gorilla Forest, there is a pygmy hut at one point along the trail. But elsewhere there are photos of logging trucks and cut forests, of bushmeat hanging in a market and severed gorilla hands. Later there is a gallery where life-sized cut outs of a Western field biologist, a local farmer and a Park ranger each make their case about the value and impact, or problems, of wildlife.
So rather than presenting a simplified Romantic fantasy of humans in gorilla-territory, the exhibit asks visitors to think and discuss and debate.
This approach has been repeated and amplified at zoos across the world to a greater or lesser degree.
That is the sort of "cultural exhibit" I believe can be constructive.

It is not, I suspect, the sort of crowd pleasing, visitation building amenity ANyhuis enjoys. And if "fantasy locale" is the ticket, there are many possibilities that do not require blinding oneself to social and historical and political realities when designing an animal exhibit with human cultural furniture. Or there is Dallas Zoo's new Giants of the Savanna which does not recreate tribal architecture at all and yet has attractive buildings that fit into the landscape.

None of this addresses the article's author's points about how Western conservation exploits indigenous peoples, but that is an even more thorny question.

 

[Hungrytroll]

I agree with everything you said, and I do hope that the new exhibit in houston borrows the same concepts. While I'm all for fantasy, and history, the modern issues in Africa should be touched on as well.

 

[ANyhuis]

It is not, I suspect, the sort of crowd pleasing, visitation building amenity ANyhuis enjoys.

Actually, I love Congo Gorilla Forest, as well as Giants of the Savanna. Quite honestly, I like almost all forms of cultural exhibits. If the zoo makes an effort to give me the feeling that I'm in another part of the world, then I like it.

As for presenting the conservation problems, such as bushmeat and severed gorilla hands, I have mixed feelings. While I agree that educating visitors to these (and other) problems is important, it is not (in my humble opinion) the most important thing. To me, the most important thing is setting up such exhibits is to satisfy the customers. We want (and need) zoo visitors to come back! We don't want to depress them -- to the point that they see zoos as depressing places. Many people go to zoos to "escape" -- to escape from their busy lives, and perhaps from various depressing aspects in their lives. We don't need to depress them further.