Talk:Human zoo

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zoo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jrrwfw, Ohmizzoutigers, Jade2047 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gigirojas, Amarie2003.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rfern15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

photo

It would be good this article to contain some photos depicting human zoos and the species presented there.

Well, Homo sapiens is certainly one of them. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of images now. The species is pretty clear, no? —mako ๛ 22:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

Please, can anyone add the foloowing text (removed from zoo) to this article? That would be great!

“

The African Pigmy, "Ota Benga."

Age, 23 years. Height, 4 feet 11 inches.
Weight, 103 pounds.
Brought from the Kasai River, Congo Free State, South Central Africa, by Dr. Samuel P. Verner.
Exhibited each afternoon during September.
— a sign outside the primate house at the Bronx Zoo, September 1906.^[1]

”

Human beings were sometimes displayed in cages along with non-human animals, supposedly to illustrate the differences between people of European and non-European origin. During the 19th century, zoos with human exhibits existed in Hamburg, Antwerp, Barcelona, London, Milan, New York, and Warsaw, with 200,000 to 300,000 visitors reportedly attending each exhibition.

In September 1906, William Hornaday, director of the Bronx Zoo in New York — with the agreement of Madison Grant, head of the New York Zoological Society — had Ota Benga, a Congolese pygmy, displayed in a cage with the chimpanzees, then with an orangutan named Dohong, and a parrot. The exhibit was intended as an example of the "missing link" between the orangutan and white man. It triggered protests from the city's clergymen, but the public reportedly flocked to see it.^[2]^[1]

Human beings were displayed in cages during the 1931 Paris Colonial Exposition, and as late as 1958 in a "Congolese village" display at Expo '58 in Brussels.^[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoofan1975 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Man and Monkey Show Disapproved by Clergy", The New York Times, September 10, 1906.
^ Bradford, Phillips Verner and Blume, Harvey. Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo. St. Martins Press, 1992.
^ Blanchard, Pascal; Bancel, Nicolas; and Lemaire, Sandrine. "From human zoos to colonial apotheoses: the era of exhibiting the Other", Africultures.

Merge with colonial exhibitions?

I disagree with the proposal to merge this with 'colonial exhibitions.' A human zoo is simply a sub-category of a colonial exhibition which covers a wide range of topics (i.e. such as architecture, botany, etc). It would be better to simply link the two as related 'see also' articles. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move this page from Human Zoo to Human zoo

Support--Jahsonic 16:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also support

Support. Switchercat 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Human Zoos

I feel their should be a clarification avout the London Human Zoo, this is in no way racist and is very diffrent from the human zoos of the past

Agreed. I came here following a link on the London Zoo page which mentioned a human exhibit in 2005 but didn't really explain anything about what it involved, other than eight people on display. I seriously doubt it was the same as the older human zoo's but there is really nothing said in either article to suggest otherwise. Some clarification by someone who knows more about the subject would be very helpful. Danikat (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "African Village" in Augsburg in 2005 was not a human zoo, it was a market selling African stuff with predominantly white sellers, so not at all anything related to human zoo. Simply to be checked on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.131.114 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huge mis-information !?

According to books of zoo history, "human zoos" were completely different from horrors in wiki article. They closely resembled tours of folkloristic dancers of today.

Native people arrived on voluntary paid contracts which included transporting them from and to their country of origin. Some groups arrived many times and provisions of contracts were, apparently, quite just.

Native displays were simply part of zoos' role as provider of information about the distant countries, together with geologic and botanical displays, restorations of exotic architecture etc. It was before time of color photography, TV or accesible tourism to these places.

I did not found information that they were more 'racist' than general attitudes of XIX century. They seemed rather informative, at times when average European citizen knew almost nothing about Africa or South America.

One of these sources is very, very wrong!

True, this article is very leftist and POV. In a 'zoo,' a person is caged and cannot escape. This would apply to those sent on exhibitions in the slavery era but not post-slavery. There should be a 'qualifier' in the article and a POV label. The real issue is that it is hard to come up with a better term that everyone can agree on. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV-check

I'm going to nominate this page for a NPOV check. Especially the last section reads more like a critical argument than an encyclopedia. Not that I disagree with the argument, Human Zoos were / are clearly racist, but critical analysis isn't what Wikipedia is for. MikeDockery 07:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree 2A00:23C8:B706:2B01:655E:F140:E203:C196 (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

moved a line here

"Apparently, the critical intent of Joseph Beuys 1974 performance in New York, "I Like America and America Likes Me", hasn't yet touched the organizators' minds."

This was the last line of the article. Clearly not encyclopedic. MikeDockery 08:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems to violate NPOV, moved here for discussion:

"These 21st century zoos seem to be done in total ignorance of the colonialist history of "ethnographic exhibitions", as demonstrated by the caption illustrating the CBS news story: "The world's first ever Human Zoo exhibit"..., naively presented as sort of a joke while the stakes of presenting the human being as "just another animal" is not seen as an "animalization process of the human being", which could be related to Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer, a human being became "bare life", deprived of any civil rights. ^[1]" MikeDockery 08:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Various grammar edits need to happen here. For example: " Nomadic "Senegalese villages" are also created, thus displaying the power of the colonial empire to all the population." "Are" should be "were". Tangentially, subordinate clause beginning "thus" is speculative, not encyclopedic.

NPOV and critical content

The content violating NPOV all seems to be of a critical rather than an encyclopedic nature, not to mention having been added ad hoc with little attention paid to basic grammatical conventions. Could we remove them? The extensive block quotes are a case in point. Perhaps nominate the article for clean up. It's a tad embarrasing.

I agree. Portions of this article feel like a rambling postmodernist critique. It needs to be broken down into facts, dates, etc, and then completely rewritten. Bhumiya/Talk 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that the term "human zoo" was ever applied at the time to the ethnographic exhibits of people in their native settings that are described in this article. Rather, I expect that the term was very recently invented within the last few years by those hysterical postmodernist "anti-racists" who deny the existence of different races or peoples, and so condemn any sort of exhibition that is intended to inform the public about them. The article does indeed violate NPOV, and is not suitable for an encylclopedia. It is also jargony. Whatever in the world does this mean? : "Doubtlessly eugenics, social darwinism and racial hierarchy dialectically answer themselves together". This is laughable, silly and meaningless, even to the educated. The whole article should be deleted because of its violation of NPOV DonSiano 09:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this particular term seems to be a neologism, but the concept itself is encyclopedic. Currently, it reads like an essay, but I think the content can be fixed and maybe moved to a different title. Bhumiya/Talk 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the article (if it should exist at all) is misnamed. There are two phenomena here: (1) the concept of "Colonial expositions" in the 19th and early 20th century. This may or may not be an interesting topic for an encyclopaedic article, and even though there are obvious problems of delineation (towards, for example, a contemporary African dance festival or something like that), it may be a good idea. (2) The description of such expositions as "Human zoos". Following the links provided in this article, this seems to be a 21st century French phenomenon. (But what do I know.) The latter trend (if it is one) may be an interesting sociological phenomenon itself, but WP is not the place to analyse it.

So I propose to move to Colonial expositions of the 19th and 20th century, or another, better title (we need an overview of contemporary terms). The current form of the article is terrible. Arbor 16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I think Colonial exhibition would be the correct "home" for this article. There is already a stub there. Arbor 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from being an expert on these exhibits, but I've never heard them called "human zoos". In my experience, they're rendered "ethnographic exhibit" or "ethnological exhibit". I think Colonial exhibition would work for me (provided that this can be stretched to include exhibitions from the US, which was not a colonial power in exactly the same way as the European states).--Birdmessenger 11:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow

This article states, "the popular success of such sideshows and exhibitions demonstrates the popularity of racism in Europe until World War II." I'm not racist, but if I would have been alive during those times I would most likely have visited such an exposition out of curiosity. Popularity of an exhibit does not make its visitors racist, at best it makes them curious of familiarizing themselves with a different culture. The article's statement is the equivalent of proposing that the popularity of a Hitler documentary is proof of the extent of neo-Nazism. Infinitussollux 18:13, 23 May 2006

That's not a bad criticism, actually. I think one could say that the popularity of them demonstrates the intense interest in other cultures, other people, and the connections between man and nature, etc., just as easily. In any case, we shouldn't be writing such analysis in Wikipedia -- it is definitely in violation of WP:NOR at the very least. --Fastfission 20:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's statement is the equivalent of proposing that the popularity of a Hitler documentary is proof of the extent of neo-Nazism.

I think a better analogy is this: the popularity of strip clubs is symptomatic of sexism in society. Not eveyone who goes to see the strippers is sexist, but the fact that the such clubs exist, that there is this institution in which women become objects economically valued for their sexuality in a way that is mostly not possible for men,

I totally disagree. There 'are' male strip clubs, both for women (such as Chippendales) and for gay men. Rather, some are 'reading' more into things than are actually there. Strip clubs are meant for sexual/prurient interest, not to condone 'sexism.' Such a charge is POV and itself sexist.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is indicative of pervasive sexism (yes, I know that this is hardly a statement with which everyone will agree, but I'm trying to explain the basis on which a number of people are critical of these ethnographic zoos, so bear with me).

Similarly, the zoos were an institution in which human beings became objects valued for some objectifying quality, their exoticness or primitiveness or even their animalistic qualities. And who had the power to gaze at whom? No one was putting white people on display for Indians or Africans. This, it is argued, is what is symptomatic of racism in turn of the century, colonist Western societies.

I agree that it is not fair to say that each and every individual who went to the ethnographic exhibitions was a racist. It can be argued, however, that they were participating in an institution whose assumptions were racist and whose product was racist ideals.--Birdmessenger 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed title

"Human zoo" is not a term in regular English and it never has been. We really need another title, probably something with "ethnological"; what about ethnological village?--Pharos 09:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnological village" is a totally non-existent term (and gets into certain distinctions between ethnology and anthropology that are complicated in the 19th century). "Human zoo" has at least been used in some scholarly contexts. If we need a different title it should be one based on an unambiguous description, i.e. "The display of humans in zoos" or something like that. --Fastfission 13:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnological village" is a bit artificial I admit (though there are a few [2] [3] direct references). The proposal is constructed on the basis that these were historically almost always described as "ethnological" and often as "villages".--Pharos 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Amazon search also show "ethnological village" being used in 21 books (and no references for "human zoo" being used in the sense described here). Not bad for a "totally non-existent term". We should be going for a historically-grounded English name here.--Pharos 14:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the references at the end of the article, you will see that the scholars whom have attracted attention to this used the term "human zoo". Mainly, the Monde diplomatique article in which they exposed to the general public parts of their research (elsewhere published, including the quoted book), refers to "Human Zoo", and has been used as source by other scholars. It should certainly not be merged with Colonial exhibitions, because if they're were human zoos in Colonial exhibitions, Colonial exhibition weren't only human zoos. "Ethnological village" was the term adopted at the time, and seems to me as POV as what "Human Zoo" might sound to some ears. It isn't any more scholarly (since, if you got the meaning of the article, human zoos are precisely at the intersection between popular culture & scholarly knowledge), but misleads someone in thinking these were only pure scientific (ethnological) experiences. Far away from the truth... As far as I know, the few scholars whom are working on this right now refers to it as "Human Zoo". Lapaz 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legacy of 'human zoo's -- NPOV

I just wanted to address what is clearly an NPOV segment of this rather interesting article.

The concept of the human zoo has not completely disappeared. A "Congolese village" was displayed at the Brussels 1958 World's Fair [7]. An "African Village" was opened in Augsburg's zoo in Germany in July 2005 [8]. According to a June 1994 article by Le Monde diplomatique, a human zoo was present in the village of Huang-Haen in Burma, visited by most tourist agencies [9]. In August 2005, the London Zoo also displayed human beings wearing fig leaves (though in this case, the humans volunteered) [10]. At Plimoth Plantation in Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States, a recreation of a Wampanoag village can be found adjacent to the reconstructed Plimoth Colony, staffed by Native Americans in traditional garb. [11]

This paragraph reads as though all of these 'zoo' residents were forced to be there. Clearly even in the earliest onset of 1958, slavery had well and truly been abolished and it was highly improbable that the residents were forced to live there. Further, given the tone of the entire article addressing 'human zoo's not as an archaeic sociological oddity of behavioural science, that being collecting and / or displaying anything and everything even fellow human beings (which still goes on today in many ways), it further takes these events of willing participants into the same negative light, which I find to be incorrect.

The concept of a human zoo is relatively exciting, as far as voluntary participation goes; we see elements of it in 'reality tv' being the most common and contemporary example and it is still fully in force today on a grander scale. We need only look at the exhibitionists of the internet in cam sites out there to further illustrate that human nature enjoys being watched and watching others, especially in their natural habitat.

I believe that the section in question should neutrally and accurately represent this. Human zoo's may have been attached with human rights issues and carried out some abominable practises, but so do all animal zoo's in the same unnatural captive way; why we as an animal species are exclusive to such civility is a question I shall not pose here, however one that I will is why is it neccesary to focus only on the negative aspect of this issue? Jachin 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoined twins

The bit about Chang and Eng doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. They weren't displayed "in their native state"--they were displayed as a freak show, like a bearded lady or the Elephant Man. I hesitate to edit this article, however, since there's obviously already some contention about subject matter. IrisWings 07:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Zoo in Australia

Month-long voluntary, non-racist enclosure.

[4]

Not quite the same thing as the subject of the article. Rintrah 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human zoos replaced by tv documentaries?

Call me cynical, but I believe the main reason human zoos stopped being popular was simply because television documentaries made them obsolete, giving a better way to give insight into "exotic" peoples lives. Should there be a mention of the birth of such documentaries? —Pengo 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that there is a difference. A documentary wants to show the real thing, the lives of "exotic" people, and given that for example the BBC also does documentarys about "western" people and our habits of live i dont see how to compare those two things. They do not take a number of people out of their natural enviroment and society and present them in a zoo.

Human Zoos were there not to show the "real life" of pygmies, or other indigenous people. They were just there to show the that the white western people are better then the africans who were on display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.182.94 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divide into folk show and humans in zoo?

The very name (together with misplaced text) suggests that folk shows mistreated and insulted people. Except a few isolated and perhaps not connected incidents, not. These were usually etnographic shows. There is no mention that 19.-20. cent. zoos presented all kind of subjects which European would find unknown, not just animals: minerals, plants, bone diisplays, people and buildings. Equally, one can blame Natural History Museum or Discovery Channel for racism.

Hagenbeck Zoo included (and still includes) magnificent replicas of non-European buildings: Egyptian temples, Oriental palaces and Japanese gardens. This should throw into pieces the moronic idea that non-European cultures were presented as inferior, uncivilized, animal-like...

Maybe most sensible way to sort this mess is dividing article into "folk shows" and "humans in zoos" which would present freak shows and suchlike, and few examples from fiction (e.g. Star Trek or Vonnegut). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.152.84.114 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nazis and Human Zoos

I wonder if there is any evidence of Nazis running human zoos or of such zoos being in Nazi Germany. Given the Nazis' ideology, which encouraged racist practices and policies, including genocide, one would not be too surprised to hear that the Nazis ran or encouraged human zoos housing blacks, Jews, Arabs, Chinese, etc. If such zoos are known to have existed - and I don't know if any such zoos existed - they might make a pertinent contribution to this article. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think they have ... the only thing that remotly resembles a human zoo, but which was not accesable by the public is the Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, Which was a CC in which was used to show the International Red Cross how good the Jews are treated in Germany, (They even made a movie about that).

But honestly : I dont think that it goes well with Nazi ideology which wanted to destroy and kill each and every Jew on earth, and even wipe out the history that the jews have existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.182.94 (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in fact they were prohibited for political reasons. Nazis critizised the British colonial system and as such tried to gain sympathy of indigenious populations.--Dojarca (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional dances and songs as stereotypical behaviors

The Chinese Minority Park in Beijing might be considered a Human Zoo as it has minorities who spend their days in special themed enclosures and they do stereotypical behavior such as traditional dances and songs. However the minorities are not forced to be in the park.

This is got to be a joke. Dancing and song now classify as stereotypes? Maybe there shouldn't be any cultural exchange at all, that way, no one can complain you are making fun of them!

I am deleting this.

PS: This sentence also have no source, not even from a blog.

24.89.245.62 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article breaks NOPV

As it says here, I can give many other reasons to explain why this article exposes a completely missed approach. Even though a "human zoo" is a possible concept (in human zoos we could observe from a static descriptive analytic exposition, different human beings in a controlled environment); actually, most of the cases explained here are closer to "human exhibitions" or "culture exhibitions", a different approach which is quite far from slavery, racism and animalization of human beings (ideas which the title, clearly and without enough base -source 15 is out, source 16 is a blog, source 17 is out...-, tries to infere to the reader, violating WP:NPOV) and closely related on the first stages of internazionalization and globalization; and culture and ethnic mixing. This article clearly brings a ridiculous segmented point of view (yeah man, I am already quite concerned about slavery, racism, inculture, and colonialism; you don't need to invent the History to underline it) and, for changing it, we could start retitling the article from Human zoo to Ethnic exhibitions.

Anyway, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Best regards. 79.154.25.201 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1980's Ripley's Believe It or Not! Segment

I've been searching of late for what I recall was a segment on the 1980's Ripley's Believe It or Not! show about a zoo that hired a comic actor to portray a "Human" in an exhibit lasting several days if not weeks. If memory serves, he was display ape-like behavior and body language doing routine tasks and acted like a chimp while typing at a computer in an "office" (Think of those CareerBuilder chimp ads.) and the stunt was a big hit for the zoo. I'm pretty sure the segment was indeed from Ripley's and not That's Incredible or Real People, or some other show, but couldn't find a bit of info on-line about this, like who the actor was. (If he hadn't been a white guy in a business suit the performance would have been understandably decried as a racist horror, but instead, having been done right, it looked hilarious.) Anyone have more info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.107.214 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! It was an "exhibit" titled "Urban Man" a the Miami Metrozoo starring Albert Vidal [5] and the segment can be found here[6] about 38 minutes in, with more info here[7] and the videos Vidal has posted himself. It was only a 72 hour exhibit and the details of my memories as described above were a bit off (He acted more like a bird than an ape.), but then I was only about 10 at the time I saw it so it's a wonder I remembered much at all.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.81.218 (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cobelco.org/Library/Soir_peutonexposerdespygmees.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0%2C1518%2C359304%2C00.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0%2C1518%2C360267%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222070938/http://tvnz.co.nz/content/957918/3362663.xhtml to http://tvnz.co.nz/content/957918/3362663.xhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Human zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928140712/http://www.modelminority.com/article750.html to http://www.modelminority.com/article750.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Humanzoogermany.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hornaday

In the article's current state it suddenly refers to "Hornaday" but it isn't explained who s/he is. Later on it refers to a zoo director Hornaday. If this is the same person it should be described who the person is at the first mention of Hornaday. 1dragon (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary vs involuntary

There are many examples here of people beign exhibited in human zoos, but no attempt to delineate between when people chose to partake and when they were forced to - two rather different situations. Someone who says 'yes, I'll dance around in traditional dress for gawping crowds for a few pennies' is in a rather different situation to someone dragged from home and forced to do the same under threat of physical punishment. LastDodo (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clothed nudes?

"The latter featured nude women performing in western attire"

Am I missing something here? Flapdragon (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been removed. —mako ๛ 22:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is a mess

This may be the worst article I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. It reads like a middle school book report, with extensive use of scare quotes, poor grammar, and no attempt at to keep a neutral POV at all. It's almost like the article was written to make an argument, rather than relay information. Honestly it should just be started over from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.224.53 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence from lead

I removed this sentence since it doesn't make sense:

Animal zoos provide many controversies spanning to the modern day, as human expositions diminished in prominence in the 20th century.^[1]

—mako ๛ 22:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Abbattista 2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[NYTBenga-1] "Man and Monkey Show Disapproved by Clergy", The New York Times, September 10, 1906.

[2] Bradford, Phillips Verner and Blume, Harvey. Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo. St. Martins Press, 1992.

[3] Blanchard, Pascal; Bancel, Nicolas; and Lemaire, Sandrine. "From human zoos to colonial apotheoses: the era of exhibiting the Other", Africultures.

[Abbattista_2014-4] Cite error: The named reference Abbattista 2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]