- I think my 'problem' with Land of the Lions (and other similar exhibits) is severalfold:
- It just seems silly - the turning of animal exhibitory into a child's theme park. It is possible to evoke the exotic without going down this route (London's tiger exhibit being a case in point).
- The animals become secondary to the tat that surrounds them (qv Paira Diaza)
- There is something deeply patronising about recreating a slice of faux India in a London Park. If I saw the Mumbai Zoo displaying European Badgers and Red Foxes in a mocked up recreation of Croydon, I would find it distinctly puzzling!
On your first points I mildly disagree, but totally sympathise with your argument. But the last one (in bold) seems to be the answer to my question. Land of the Lions doesn't make me feel uncomfortable because it seems to avoid four key problems that zoos putting animals into the context of the humans they live alongside often encounter.
1) It isn't just mud huts with squiggles on that
convey the feeling of exoticism without (seemingly) any attempt to accurately portray local cultures.
2) It doesn't feel like 'cultural appropriation'. I think this term has been overextended and overused recently, but there is no doubt that it is a reasonable concept at its core. Things like temples and totem poles in zoos certainly
do make me highly uncomfortable.
3) It doesn't seem to have any shades of the 'human zoo'. I may simply not remember a key detail about LotL here, but quite often information about local, inevitably 'tribal', peoples is presented along with that about the animals in a way that seems to blur a line that really shouldn't be blurred.
4) It doesn't create a false impression by portraying the lives of local people as exactly the same as they would have been several hundred years ago. This one is the most dangerous I think because it isn't just offensive; it's outright damaging. Firstly because it reinforces ideas about 'primitiveness' that have real political consequences, and secondly because it feeds the myth that somewhere, everywhere, exist huge tracts of undisturbed, undeveloped land where animals and people are living as they always have done. This is bad because it removes the sense of crisis that should be present when thinking about conservation.
To address the question from a different perspective, let's consider Mumbai Zoo's theoretical Croydon exhibit.
1) The generic 'european' house probably looks a lot more like something from Bohemia than the UK. A lack of attention here is immediately obvious.
2) The exhibit features a bat exhibit themed as a small church. The church itself is not a problem, but the faithfully recreated altar, crucifixes, memorial candles and sacrements certainly are.
3) A little trickier due to the context of the human zoo and recent western imperialism. I'm sure we can all imagine some suitably offensive signage though.
4) The exhibit looks more like a Hogarth or Constable painting than actual modern Croydon. As a result Mumbaians are leaving the zoo with a totally inaccurate picture of life in London.
If, on the other hand, the exhibit actually felt like it was faithfully recreating unkempt, unloved British suburbia I think I would be mildly delighted to find such an interesting and unusual approach, as long as there were plenty of exhibits in there as well!
The reason I like Land of the Lions is that, as I have said before, it really feels like they have got it right. Urban spaces in developing countries, away from major city centres, are messy. They are a fascinating blend of traditional and modern architectural styles using modern and traditional materials. Fridges sit next to open hearths, machetes next to iPhones. The specifics of the towns around the Gir Forest I know nothing about, but these patterns of modern living seem to be universal. I think London managed to capture that.
