Cultural Aspects Within Zoos

Hix said:
Yes, they are relevant to this thread. But you have to sit down and wade through all the extraneous commentary to actually find the relevance. If you had kept it concise and to the point then there would be no problem, but all the extra stuff certainly looks like American-bashing.

Especially the second post - all you had to say was "I'd like to see more zoos in the States have an American Indian theme with their bison exhibits, as the bison was such an important part of their life".

Hix
Click to expand...

Admittedly there is extraneous commentary , english is not my first language it is sometimes with difficulty in the language that i express myself. I think it is important to tell the whole story with facts and reality, "warts and all" as the expression goes, which many zoo chatters will not be acquainted with and no doubt many will be interested to find out. Is there even such a thing as "American bashing" ? and if telling the truth and having an awareness about racial abuse in a zoological garden a genocide and the hunting of a species to near extinction to cause it is "American bashing" then thats ridiculous."I'd like to see more zoos in the States have an American Indian theme with their bison exhibits, as the bison was such an important part of their life" Yes your right i should have carefully censored my words no ? how is it that historical facts about these events are meant to be ignored? shouldnt we owe it to the memory of Ota and the countless native americans tribes extinct or clingling onto survival (without the respect they most sincerely deserve) on reservations, to tell these historic examples of foul human ignorance and brutality to his fellow man and against another species of animals ?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Hix, the post was tenuously relevant to the thread but it did rather appear to be an excuse to return to political arguments about things which happened 150 years ago. Yes, the views of the american government were, to put it mildly, misguided when it came to the plains indians and it is important that we learn from their mistakes, but that does not mean that it has to brought up in threads about cultural resonance or ratel at Howletts or the puma exhibit at the RSCC or whatever. Sorry if anyone finds this offensive, but I come to this site to discuss zoos and would hope that others wish to do the same. If this is not the case, perhaps they vent their political frustrations by joining a more appropriate forum so that here we can stick to more appropriate topics.
 
redpanda said:
I agree with Hix, the post was tenuously relevant to the thread but it did rather appear to be an excuse to return to political arguments about things which happened 150 years ago. Yes, the views of the american government were, to put it mildly, misguided when it came to the plains indians and it is important that we learn from their mistakes, but that does not mean that it has to brought up in threads about cultural resonance or ratel at Howletts or the puma exhibit at the RSCC or whatever. Sorry if anyone finds this offensive, but I come to this site to discuss zoos and would hope that others wish to do the same. If this is not the case, perhaps they vent their political frustrations by joining a more appropriate forum so that here we can stick to more appropriate topics.
Click to expand...

I understand that you do not wish to discuss about historic events from the past redpanda and i agree that this is a forum about animal species and zoological gardens not about the horrors of history. It might have appeared like an excuse for another political debate , but it in fact wasnt. I was highlighting the treatment of Ota Benga which i would say is a very relevant topic for cultural resonance as it happened in a zoological garden and was endorsed and even encouraged by a very influential zoological society. On the topic of the native americans i perhaps shouldnt have talked at such a great length but i have interests in history and anthropology as well as the natrual world and the topics are inseperable when considering the history of the Sioux nation and the American Bison. The Howletts ratel thread argument was ridiculous and shouldnt have even happened but i think in this thread it is relevant to talk about abhorent former zoological practices and potrayals of the relationship between particular species and mankind in zoological gardens. I am a member of several organisations and forums of varied subjects such as anthropology , prehispanic history,philosophy and politics etc. i will in the future try to keep my views regarding human beings away from this forum and in more suitable discussions where they belong, but where it is relevant such in this post i am entitled to comment about such matters.
 
I agree there is an educational place for more cultural displays in zoos, especially showing the effect of society on the natural world and how it is possible for both to coexist. I would love to see information about the Orang Rimba encorporated into Sumatran exhibits, to show that it is not only wildlife affected by the oilpalm-driven deforestation.

I agree with Jose that indigenous cultures always seem to have shown much more respect for the natural world and perhaps there is a lot that our so-called civilised society can learn from.
 
Now this is exactly the romantic fiction I was questioning in my original post (#2 in the thread) about featuring primitive artifacts and huts in zoo exhibits. There is little evidence that indigenous people (as some global ill defined group) were much better at living harmoniously with nature than 18th century Britons were. Some people yes, others no.Some groups more and others less. Many indigenous peoples in North and South America damaged their local ecosystems so badly that their cultures died out or were forced to migrate.

Please understand, none of this excuses the sins and crimes of imperialist governments and Nations, but rather ought to push us to ask the hard questions about how we might truly protect Nature today, given where we are and what we know. To simply look with glazed eyes at indigenous people ("the noble savage" how insulting and denigrating a concept!) and declare that they knew how to live with Nature is a dodge. They didn't and we need to. Romanticizing indigenous people does little to create solutions to today's conservation problems.

So what are we to do? That, IMO, is the issue zoos need to tackle and cultural theming should come from that position if the zoo's avowed conservation mission is to be met.

Creating an "African village" or "Himalayan ruin" is a lovely theme-park fantasy. Creating memorials to genocides are important. But let zoos strive for wildlife conservation and education goals.
 
Zooplantman said:
Now this is exactly the romantic fiction I was questioning in my original post (#2 in the thread) about featuring primitive artifacts and huts in zoo exhibits. There is little evidence that indigenous people (as some global ill defined group) were much better at living harmoniously with nature than 18th century Britons were. Some people yes, others no.Some groups more and others less. Many indigenous peoples in North and South America damaged their local ecosystems so badly that their cultures died out or were forced to migrate.

Please understand, none of this excuses the sins and crimes of imperialist governments and Nations, but rather ought to push us to ask the hard questions about how we might truly protect Nature today, given where we are and what we know. To simply look with glazed eyes at indigenous people ("the noble savage" how insulting and denigrating a concept!) and declare that they knew how to live with Nature is a dodge. They didn't and we need to. Romanticizing indigenous people does little to create solutions to today's conservation problems.

So what are we to do? That, IMO, is the issue zoos need to tackle and cultural theming should come from that position if the zoo's avowed conservation mission is to be met.

Creating an "African village" or "Himalayan ruin" is a lovely theme-park fantasy. Creating memorials to genocides are important. But let zoos strive for wildlife conservation and education goals.
Click to expand...

Excellent post Zooplantman. I agree with you. For further reading on the subject of the myth of the "noble savage" I recommend reading Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters it is quite enlightening.

The theme-park fantasy elements are fine, but not ultimately what we should be striving for in portraying animals in appropriate contexts.
 
Jose said:
I understand that you do not wish to discuss about historic events from the past redpanda and i agree that this is a forum about animal species and zoological gardens not about the horrors of history. It might have appeared like an excuse for another political debate , but it in fact wasnt. I was highlighting the treatment of Ota Benga which i would say is a very relevant topic for cultural resonance as it happened in a zoological garden and was endorsed and even encouraged by a very influential zoological society. On the topic of the native americans i perhaps shouldnt have talked at such a great length but i have interests in history and anthropology as well as the natrual world and the topics are inseperable when considering the history of the Sioux nation and the American Bison. The Howletts ratel thread argument was ridiculous and shouldnt have even happened but i think in this thread it is relevant to talk about abhorent former zoological practices and potrayals of the relationship between particular species and mankind in zoological gardens. I am a member of several organisations and forums of varied subjects such as anthropology , prehispanic history,philosophy and politics etc. i will in the future try to keep my views regarding human beings away from this forum and in more suitable discussions where they belong, but where it is relevant such in this post i am entitled to comment about such matters.
Click to expand...

Jose, the facts are fine, and mostly relevant, its the backhanded comments which accompany them that are inappropriate. All of our countries and all of our governments have things in the past that are shameful, but there is no reason for any of us here on Zoochat to belittle the heritage of ANYONE else.
 
Maybe I am a romantic - you wouldn't be the first to accuse me of that, and I'm not apologising for it. (Although I have a great deal of respect for you and am grateful for the help you gave me with my leopard enclosure if you are that zooplantman). Maybe I was too affected by Dances with Wolves as a child :)

Nor was I deliberately slating the actions of any nation, and do not want to enter any polital debate. When I said "indigenous people" it was a blanket statement to include the Americas but also the druids of Europe, the aboriginal cultures of Australisia and tribes of Africa. If you have to chase an antelope on foot for food, or you rely on the forest for survival then you do show a greater respect for the living world. Actually foremost in my mind when I posted the comment was the Orang Rimba in Sumatra whose homes were sold from under them by a government they didn't even know existed.
 
Last edited:
Jose said:
I understand that you do not wish to discuss about historic events from the past redpanda and i agree that this is a forum about animal species and zoological gardens not about the horrors of history. It might have appeared like an excuse for another political debate , but it in fact wasnt. I was highlighting the treatment of Ota Benga which i would say is a very relevant topic for cultural resonance as it happened in a zoological garden and was endorsed and even encouraged by a very influential zoological society. On the topic of the native americans i perhaps shouldnt have talked at such a great length but i have interests in history and anthropology as well as the natrual world and the topics are inseperable when considering the history of the Sioux nation and the American Bison. The Howletts ratel thread argument was ridiculous and shouldnt have even happened but i think in this thread it is relevant to talk about abhorent former zoological practices and potrayals of the relationship between particular species and mankind in zoological gardens. I am a member of several organisations and forums of varied subjects such as anthropology , prehispanic history,philosophy and politics etc. i will in the future try to keep my views regarding human beings away from this forum and in more suitable discussions where they belong, but where it is relevant such in this post i am entitled to comment about such matters.
Click to expand...

I find myself in the surprising positon of agreeing--in part--with what Jose is saying. I'm thinking of the firestorm that erupted in Seattle two years ago when the Woodland Park Zoo attempted to educate their visitors about the cultural aspects of wildlife conservation by hiring two Kenyan Masaai as on-site interpretive staff. Their role was to interact with guests in the setting of the "African Village" that is the introduction and first viewing area of the Zoo's Afrcian Savanna exhibit. They were there to explain and discuss the traditional relationships of the Masaai and their homeland (and wildlife), as well as the contemporary issues of human/wildlife conflict, modernization, tourism etc.

The Zoo was attacked by a number of African-American academics for "explointing" the Kenyans and for "displaying Africans as zoo exhibits," which was of course not the point. The reality is that no conservation issue can be fully discussed without an understanding of the human role involved. The need for animals and natural environments to "pay their way" via ecotourism, watershed protection, sustained harvest or other human benefits has never been more critical, and the story of the interaction between "indigenous" cultures and wildlife is not one that can be glossed over. All of this was lost in the loud debate over the political correctness of having a human cultural component to a zoo exhibit.

But the myth of the "noble savage" is certainly one that needs to be corrected. Humans have cut a destructive swath wherever they have moved on the planet ("The Future Eaters" describes very well the impact on Australasia--similar stories can be told about the Americas and nearly every island on earth). And in the end whether the destructive changes come via stone axes or Blackhawk helicopters negates the moralistic myth that "native peoples" are any more responsible stewards that those who move in from other places.

None of this excuses the terrible treatment of Ota Benga, or Hagenbeck's exploitative "shows," but it should be noted that Montezuma's grand zoo in Tenochtitlan housed not only vast flocks of quetzals and other birds, but also prominently featured caged "dwarfs" and other humans held in slavery. It is a far more complicated issue than simply "bad Americans (or Europeans) vs. good indigenous peoples."

And enough with all the fake "Mayan ruins" in jaguar exhibits already!
 
reduakari said:
I find myself in the surprising positon of agreeing--in part--with what Jose is saying. I'm thinking of the firestorm that erupted in Seattle two years ago when the Woodland Park Zoo attempted to educate their visitors about the cultural aspects of wildlife conservation by hiring two Kenyan Masaai as on-site interpretive staff. Their role was to interact with guests in the setting of the "African Village" that is the introduction and first viewing area of the Zoo's Afrcian Savanna exhibit. They were there to explain and discuss the traditional relationships of the Masaai and their homeland (and wildlife), as well as the contemporary issues of human/wildlife conflict, modernization, tourism etc.

The Zoo was attacked by a number of African-American academics for "explointing" the Kenyans and for "displaying Africans as zoo exhibits," which was of course not the point. The reality is that no conservation issue can be fully discussed without an understanding of the human role involved. The need for animals and natural environments to "pay their way" via ecotourism, watershed protection, sustained harvest or other human benefits has never been more critical, and the story of the interaction between "indigenous" cultures and wildlife is not one that can be glossed over. All of this was lost in the loud debate over the political correctness of having a human cultural component to a zoo exhibit.

But the myth of the "noble savage" is certainly one that needs to be corrected. Humans have cut a destructive swath wherever they have moved on the planet ("The Future Eaters" describes very well the impact on Australasia--similar stories can be told about the Americas and nearly every island on earth). And in the end whether the destructive changes come via stone axes or Blackhawk helicopters negates the moralistic myth that "native peoples" are any more responsible stewards that those who move in from other places.

None of this excuses the terrible treatment of Ota Benga, or Hagenbeck's exploitative "shows," but it should be noted that Montezuma's grand zoo in Tenochtitlan housed not only vast flocks of quetzals and other birds, but also prominently featured caged "dwarfs" and other humans held in slavery. It is a far more complicated issue than simply "bad Americans (or Europeans) vs. good indigenous peoples."

And enough with all the fake "Mayan ruins" in jaguar exhibits already!
Click to expand...

So reduakari we find ourselves in a rare moment of agreeing with each other about something finally, a rare moment indeed. I am in agreement with you that the "noble savage" is a stereotype which is often exagerated , flawed and outdated. It is true human beings as a species have caused tremendous damage to ecosystems wherever they have set foot. However it is also evident that many ethnic indigenous people have maintained an admirable coexistance with the natrual world without causing rampant mass extinctions or significant damage to the ecosystem, these though are an exception rather then a rule. I believe personally to a certain extent that indigenous peoples are more responsible as acting as stewards to nature then other cultures, but then there are several examples which i am reminded of such as the Moa and the polynesian Maori etc. , The people of Easter Island , and the Mayans etc. which seem to show that the rape of the natrual world is not restricted to western societies but is a fundamental part of human beings. Yes you are right reduakari about Moctezuma's famous zoo in Tenochtitlan(now called Mexico city) , it did contain human beings who were deformed as curiosities for the young emporer, but it is one thing for that to be present in a prehispanic society before the Spanish conquest several hundred years ago and another thing for the case of Ota Benga which happened in the 19th century and was institutionalised racism encouraged by those at the very top. Admittedly it is indeed a complex topic which cannot be simplified into good and bad , however great atrocities were and still are being commited by the powers that be. I will certainly read "The future eaters" as i have just finished reading the reviews on Amazon. com and it looks like a great book to order as a treat for myself for christmas. I would also reccomend the wonderful books "collapse","the third chimpanzee" and "guns germs and steel" written by the talented scientist Jarred Diamond they certainly changed my perspective on things.
 
reduakari said:
None of this excuses the terrible treatment of Ota Benga, or Hagenbeck's exploitative "shows,"
Click to expand...

Althgough Hagenbecks ethnographic displays were profitable, as far as I'm aware the peoples were not treated like Ota Benga. All were repatriated after a few months.

:p

Hix
 
I forgot about the videos we have towards the exit of Regenstein African Journey which document wildlife conservation being done by Africans in Africa. We also have signage about the bush meat crisis in the Primate House.

The children's zoo at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo is all about Australia with Australian vintage advertising signs and farmhouses. There is a camel ride with signage that talks about the importation of camels to Australia. I would consider this cultural even tho it's not about indigenous people.

An aside about Native Americans, I attended a talk about local wildlife where the lecturer mentioned a Native American who made a roof for his cabin out of turtle shells. That would be a lot of turtles.
 
Zooplantman said:
But all too often what is presented is some 1930s fantasy of cultures... ruined Mayan temples or primitive huts and artifacts.
Click to expand...

Imagine...

Raccoon exhibit featuring typical New York slum, complete with rubbish container providing enrichment...

Polar bear exhibit with broken down explorers' tent, complete with torn boots and coats...

Somali wild ass exhibit with mock-up training camp, with religious pamphlets and Kalashnikovs - would be good to illustrate difficulties in protecting wildlife in some places.

;)
 
Thought I might chime in on this one. At Dallas we are looking to try and increase the cultural elements. Nothing in a garish way, but ideas, concepts, and props that might help tell a better story. Some things we have talked about adding are a little fishing shack in the river, a Bedouin tent in the desert, and a small bushmeat camp near the Okapi. In addition to this we are working on developing a script for the monorail that is entirely cultural, but still related to the animals. This wouldn't be the same one that you hear every time but one that would rotate on a schedule with 3 or 4 other scripts/themed tours.
 
Jurek7 said:
Imagine...

Raccoon exhibit featuring typical New York slum, complete with rubbish container providing enrichment...

Polar bear exhibit with broken down explorers' tent, complete with torn boots and coats...

Somali wild ass exhibit with mock-up training camp, with religious pamphlets and Kalashnikovs - would be good to illustrate difficulties in protecting wildlife in some places.

;)
Click to expand...

This made me chuckle (we have an abundance of raccoons, opossum and squirrels in Chicago. I live near the Chicago river where there's a fox).

You could also show baboons munching maize in a maize field, drills where coltan is being mined, a tiger kept in a Harlem apartment or ostrich on an Indiana farm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top