IBARW 2: Maasai Journey
In a world without racism, Woodland Park Zoo's Maasai Journey exhibit would be just fine, so that means there's nothing wrong with it, right?
I was planning to write about this anyway, but marzipan_pig sent me a link to a radio call-in show about it this morning. I started listening with pretty different views than I finished with.
Background:
Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo tends to be progressive in naturalistic animal habitats and conservation efforts. The zoo has had an exhibit called the "African Village" for some years. It contains buildings including a typical dwelling and a school, a town square, and a well. The village looks out onto the savanna animal exhibit showing zebras and gazelles, and it contains some beadwork made by a women's co-op in the Maasai village it's based on, which is also sold in the Zoo Store.
Recently, the zoo expanded the number of Maasai docents and added new animals to form a Maasai Journey exhibit, which they've been publicizing heavily in ads that include images of zoo animals and the word "Maasai". There are now four Maasai cultural interpreters, meaning one is available in the exhibit at any given time, and at specific times they lead faux nature walks and tell stories, both from their heritage and about how they deal with wild animals in everyday life. Zoo patrons can make their own Maasai-inspired beadwork for a $3 donation to the zoo's African conservation program.
My personal experience of the Maasai Journey exhibit amounts to walking past a cold but reasonably cheerful African guy in layers of zoo-employee garb and watching giraffe feedings, so I was surprised to hear through a zoo volunteer newsletter that some people thought the exhibit was racist or exploitative. My first reaction was that saying the Maasai were being exploited denied them agency, actually. It seems to me that they're here because they want to work in their field of expertise, having previously worked in Kenyan national parks; benefit themselves and their hometowns by raising awareness and money; and possibly connect and share with people who are curious and need education. The zoo newsletter pointed out:
In fact, many cultural museums consider it best practice to have cultural interpreters from the country or culture of origin as part of the education team speaking with guests. For example, when the Burke Museum had an exhibit on Samoan culture, they hired Samoans to be cultural interpreters.
Looking at the next excerpt, though, I also thought the zoo's position might be a little problematic.
They do not try to represent "all Maasai," and certainly do not convey that they are "typical Africans" - any more than it would be appropriate for another zoo employee to represent him or herself as a "typical American." They only talk from their own experiences. Our guests are smart and they recognize that Africa is an enormous continent, and that these individuals speak from their own hearts and lives, and that Maasai are representative of just one group of Africans.
The zoo's guests are heavily weighted toward small children, and I've seen plenty of people at the zoo who didn't even read the descriptive plaques to find out what the animal they were looking at was called. "Our guests are smart" is a cop-out, and the statement as written implies that institutional racism doesn't exist -- or perhaps that smart people are immune to it. I disagree.
Local news articles:
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Maasai warriors to teach zoo visitors about life in Africa (28 Apr 2007)
A little background information on the exhibit from its beginning, and some about the newly arrived Maasai men.
Seattle Times: A misguided use of zoo guides? (8 Aug 2007)
Describes the controversy over human culture appearing in a zoo and concerns about choosing Africans specifically for the program.
Seattle Times: Guide and zoo president defend Maasai role (9 Aug 07)
Synopsis of the public discussion forum held on August 8.
[ETA]Seattle Weekly: Best of Seattle 2006 -- Kakuta Ole Maimai Hamisi (2 Aug 2007)
A short interview with the head cultural interpreter. [/ETA]
The Schrammie: Messing with the Maasai
Epitomizes "these people are oversensitive and there is just no pleasing them" argument. Openly disrespectful.
References:
Human Zoo at Wikipedia
Historical displays of exoticized humans.
USA-Africa Dialogue Series letter by Itohan Osayimwese (10 Jul 2007)
Describes very clear concerns about the exhibit and advocates a boycott on their basis. The only statement I've found so far that mentions the lack of women among the cultural interpreters, as well as my concern about agency.
African Culture and the Zoo in the 21st Century (4 Jul 2005)
Describes the incidence and results of an African Village event in the Augsburg Zoo. A scientific anthropological/sociological paper, very clear and interesting.
Mission Statement of the Maasai Association
The organization carrying on the conservation and economic partnership with Woodland Park Zoo.
KUOW radio show this morning:
I went into this show thinking that the zoo was being sensitive to the Maasai and that was the main thing, but also that they could do better about presenting the whole of Africa in some way. The comments of Kakuta Ole Maimai Hamisi, zoo employee for several years and consultant on the development of the original village exhibit and conservation partnership, had weighed heavily with me, and he clearly thought everything was just fine.
This URL looks like it's only good for today, but it does have the entire hour-long show available as long as it lasts: http://www.kuow.org/programs/weekday.asp
Panelists and position summaries:
The position summaries are my best effort based on my notes on the program, not by any written statement of the panelists', and may not be perfectly accurate.
Dr. Stephanie Camp, Associate Professor of History, University of Washington.
Position: The Maasai exhibit is well executed in itself, but there are few African images available in U.S. culture and this is the only exhibit of its kind (with people and their everyday living situation) at this zoo. These factors combine to reinforce the historical notion still extant in our culture that African people are more animalistic than other people, and that's a problem that should be addressed by the zoo.
Dr. Olúfémi Táíwò, Professor of Philosophy and Director of Global African Studies, Seattle University. From Nigeria.
Position: Zoos, aquariums, and the keeping of pets twist the nature of animals, which should remain in the wild in all cases. Classroom learning can serve the educational purposes of zoos, and it needs to be brought up to that standard. There is a larger problem of stereotypes about Africa and Africans in the U.S., and this exhibit plays into that problematically.
Kakuta Ole Maimai Hamisi, Senior Cultural Interpreter, Woodland Park Zoo. Long-term zoo employee whose home is in east Kenya. [I've used the longest form of his name that I could find. That may not be right, and I apologize if I've messed it up. ETA: changed to match the order in the Seattle Weekly article.]
Position: The African Village exhibit is correct and sensitive in the judgment of all the Maasai employees, and it represents economic development and empowerment for his village. The Maasai cultural interpreters are not standing on display; they are nature educators who are here by valid choice. This issue is being used as an excuse to examine American issues about race, which are not a concern relevant to this exhibit.
Dr. Lisa Dabek, Conservation Director, Woodland Park Zoo.
Position: The zoo's mission is to save animals and habitats through conservation and education, and these goals are served by partnerships with local communities to share their love for and ways of living with animals. The Maasai Journey exhibit serves a valuable educational purpose about this specific culture and biome, and connects zoo patrons with people who have had personal experience of the animals available at the zoo.
Panelists were called by first names during the discussion, so I've followed that in my post.
Callers:
1. The zoo is a good venue for this kind of education, and the Family Farm exhibit is not insulting or stereotyping of farmers.
[I think this one showed no awareness of the differences in power and prevalence of representation between farmers and Africans.]
2. More exhibits at the zoo should have similar docents. Racism is when we make a single culture exotic.
[In my opinion, racism is perfectly capable of exoticizing multiple cultures, but I do think his suggestion is helpful.]
3. It is necessary to mention a multiracial girlfriend before making comments. Seattle has some kind of "subconscious cultural sensitivity" about this. [Anyone want to try to interpret? It's about 37:15 in the show.] We have and need "watchdogs" like Stephanie, but we can't allow them to hold us back by talking about history.
[Basically a colorblindness argument.]
4. Jaguar exhibit has Brazilian scientists doing field work, do you want to get rid of those too?
[Not the same thing, though I do think it would be interesting in a larger context of cultural information at the zoo if we saw the "normal" Western-style houses of the researchers at home, and their jewelry and such.]
5. This is an example of colonialism and globalization, and is similar to England's use of artifacts stolen from conquered peoples to educate about those peoples.
[Sadly really hard to hear, maybe on a mobile phone, and wasn't given much time.]
Conclusions and interesting points:
Everyone seemed to be pleased by the discussion at the forum Wednesday, and the zoo is now setting up an advisory council. Everyone but Kakuta seemed to agree that the exhibit would be improved by incorporating the views of dissenters.
I found Kakuta's attitude a little disturbing in its lack of sympathy for people who said they were being hurt by his actions. For instance, Femi mentioned that people in his Nigerian-American community have been asked whether they live with animals, and he had a great point that, when Kakuta returns to Kenya, Femi will still be here dealing with the messages that are sent right now. I do think everyone is trying to get this right, though. Kakuta is working really hard at what he thinks is good for his community, and it's true that this is a positive image of Africa that may help counteract the ideas of Africa as a place inundated by violence and abject poverty.
My favorite panelist turned out to be Stephanie. At the beginning of the conversation, she talks about being shocked at the replica village and concerned that her two-year-old son will ask why Africans belong in a zoo, which put me off a bit because I didn't see a problem in the actual exhibit myself. Later, though, she was very patient in saying that the exhibit's quality is less the point than the larger context, and that we can't divorce ourselves from American history (i.e., the idea of the POC who are closer to nature) so easily. That agreed so much with things I've read (and said!) that I was persuaded to her point of view.
The main fallacy from the zoo staff was, I think, that as a single institution they can't or shouldn't have to produce all the context for this exhibit themselves. Kakuta seemed mainly to want parents to educate their own children, while Lisa was more focused on other institutions presenting different aspects of Africa, but I think both those approaches are flawed. You can't count on zoo patrons to be highly educated; in Seattle, your chances are pretty good, but plenty of people with college degrees are not well informed about other cultures or actively fighting the racism that's crept into their heads while they weren't looking. Furthermore, you can't count on zoo patrons to go to art museums. The zoo draws lots of different kinds of people, many of whom don't have a lot of time or money for family outings, and a zoo crowd is a younger crowd than is likely to have a good time at museums. "We're doing fine, it's the rest of the world who hasn't caught up" is true, but in order to educate beneficially it's necessary to pitch the message to the people in the world we actually live in. In this case, that means more information about the rest of Africa directly available at the zoo.
Suggestions:
Here's the really obvious one: Rename the replica village. "African Village" sounds like it's from anywhere in Africa, exactly the impression that no one wants to give. Name it something more specific, maybe even the same name as Kakuta's village, after which it's modeled, and then explain more about its being in a part of Kenya. There's a big map of Africa on the wall of the school building there now, but the relevant area isn't marked, and size without context really doesn't tell people much.
I do think it's the zoo's responsibility to contextualize the exhibit better. A good form of enrichment might be a mural, in part of the village or near it, which would show the cultures and biomes and cities in Africa that aren't part of the zoo's representation of the Maasai village and savanna.
(In unrelated zoo news, we have a baby Malayan tapir, who is adorable.)
I was planning to write about this anyway, but marzipan_pig sent me a link to a radio call-in show about it this morning. I started listening with pretty different views than I finished with.
Background:
Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo tends to be progressive in naturalistic animal habitats and conservation efforts. The zoo has had an exhibit called the "African Village" for some years. It contains buildings including a typical dwelling and a school, a town square, and a well. The village looks out onto the savanna animal exhibit showing zebras and gazelles, and it contains some beadwork made by a women's co-op in the Maasai village it's based on, which is also sold in the Zoo Store.
Recently, the zoo expanded the number of Maasai docents and added new animals to form a Maasai Journey exhibit, which they've been publicizing heavily in ads that include images of zoo animals and the word "Maasai". There are now four Maasai cultural interpreters, meaning one is available in the exhibit at any given time, and at specific times they lead faux nature walks and tell stories, both from their heritage and about how they deal with wild animals in everyday life. Zoo patrons can make their own Maasai-inspired beadwork for a $3 donation to the zoo's African conservation program.
My personal experience of the Maasai Journey exhibit amounts to walking past a cold but reasonably cheerful African guy in layers of zoo-employee garb and watching giraffe feedings, so I was surprised to hear through a zoo volunteer newsletter that some people thought the exhibit was racist or exploitative. My first reaction was that saying the Maasai were being exploited denied them agency, actually. It seems to me that they're here because they want to work in their field of expertise, having previously worked in Kenyan national parks; benefit themselves and their hometowns by raising awareness and money; and possibly connect and share with people who are curious and need education. The zoo newsletter pointed out:
In fact, many cultural museums consider it best practice to have cultural interpreters from the country or culture of origin as part of the education team speaking with guests. For example, when the Burke Museum had an exhibit on Samoan culture, they hired Samoans to be cultural interpreters.
Looking at the next excerpt, though, I also thought the zoo's position might be a little problematic.
They do not try to represent "all Maasai," and certainly do not convey that they are "typical Africans" - any more than it would be appropriate for another zoo employee to represent him or herself as a "typical American." They only talk from their own experiences. Our guests are smart and they recognize that Africa is an enormous continent, and that these individuals speak from their own hearts and lives, and that Maasai are representative of just one group of Africans.
The zoo's guests are heavily weighted toward small children, and I've seen plenty of people at the zoo who didn't even read the descriptive plaques to find out what the animal they were looking at was called. "Our guests are smart" is a cop-out, and the statement as written implies that institutional racism doesn't exist -- or perhaps that smart people are immune to it. I disagree.
Local news articles:
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Maasai warriors to teach zoo visitors about life in Africa (28 Apr 2007)
A little background information on the exhibit from its beginning, and some about the newly arrived Maasai men.
Seattle Times: A misguided use of zoo guides? (8 Aug 2007)
Describes the controversy over human culture appearing in a zoo and concerns about choosing Africans specifically for the program.
Seattle Times: Guide and zoo president defend Maasai role (9 Aug 07)
Synopsis of the public discussion forum held on August 8.
[ETA]Seattle Weekly: Best of Seattle 2006 -- Kakuta Ole Maimai Hamisi (2 Aug 2007)
A short interview with the head cultural interpreter. [/ETA]
The Schrammie: Messing with the Maasai
Epitomizes "these people are oversensitive and there is just no pleasing them" argument. Openly disrespectful.
References:
Human Zoo at Wikipedia
Historical displays of exoticized humans.
USA-Africa Dialogue Series letter by Itohan Osayimwese (10 Jul 2007)
Describes very clear concerns about the exhibit and advocates a boycott on their basis. The only statement I've found so far that mentions the lack of women among the cultural interpreters, as well as my concern about agency.
African Culture and the Zoo in the 21st Century (4 Jul 2005)
Describes the incidence and results of an African Village event in the Augsburg Zoo. A scientific anthropological/sociological paper, very clear and interesting.
Mission Statement of the Maasai Association
The organization carrying on the conservation and economic partnership with Woodland Park Zoo.
KUOW radio show this morning:
I went into this show thinking that the zoo was being sensitive to the Maasai and that was the main thing, but also that they could do better about presenting the whole of Africa in some way. The comments of Kakuta Ole Maimai Hamisi, zoo employee for several years and consultant on the development of the original village exhibit and conservation partnership, had weighed heavily with me, and he clearly thought everything was just fine.
This URL looks like it's only good for today, but it does have the entire hour-long show available as long as it lasts: http://www.kuow.org/programs/weekday.asp
Panelists and position summaries:
The position summaries are my best effort based on my notes on the program, not by any written statement of the panelists', and may not be perfectly accurate.
Dr. Stephanie Camp, Associate Professor of History, University of Washington.
Position: The Maasai exhibit is well executed in itself, but there are few African images available in U.S. culture and this is the only exhibit of its kind (with people and their everyday living situation) at this zoo. These factors combine to reinforce the historical notion still extant in our culture that African people are more animalistic than other people, and that's a problem that should be addressed by the zoo.
Dr. Olúfémi Táíwò, Professor of Philosophy and Director of Global African Studies, Seattle University. From Nigeria.
Position: Zoos, aquariums, and the keeping of pets twist the nature of animals, which should remain in the wild in all cases. Classroom learning can serve the educational purposes of zoos, and it needs to be brought up to that standard. There is a larger problem of stereotypes about Africa and Africans in the U.S., and this exhibit plays into that problematically.
Kakuta Ole Maimai Hamisi, Senior Cultural Interpreter, Woodland Park Zoo. Long-term zoo employee whose home is in east Kenya. [I've used the longest form of his name that I could find. That may not be right, and I apologize if I've messed it up. ETA: changed to match the order in the Seattle Weekly article.]
Position: The African Village exhibit is correct and sensitive in the judgment of all the Maasai employees, and it represents economic development and empowerment for his village. The Maasai cultural interpreters are not standing on display; they are nature educators who are here by valid choice. This issue is being used as an excuse to examine American issues about race, which are not a concern relevant to this exhibit.
Dr. Lisa Dabek, Conservation Director, Woodland Park Zoo.
Position: The zoo's mission is to save animals and habitats through conservation and education, and these goals are served by partnerships with local communities to share their love for and ways of living with animals. The Maasai Journey exhibit serves a valuable educational purpose about this specific culture and biome, and connects zoo patrons with people who have had personal experience of the animals available at the zoo.
Panelists were called by first names during the discussion, so I've followed that in my post.
Callers:
1. The zoo is a good venue for this kind of education, and the Family Farm exhibit is not insulting or stereotyping of farmers.
[I think this one showed no awareness of the differences in power and prevalence of representation between farmers and Africans.]
2. More exhibits at the zoo should have similar docents. Racism is when we make a single culture exotic.
[In my opinion, racism is perfectly capable of exoticizing multiple cultures, but I do think his suggestion is helpful.]
3. It is necessary to mention a multiracial girlfriend before making comments. Seattle has some kind of "subconscious cultural sensitivity" about this. [Anyone want to try to interpret? It's about 37:15 in the show.] We have and need "watchdogs" like Stephanie, but we can't allow them to hold us back by talking about history.
[Basically a colorblindness argument.]
4. Jaguar exhibit has Brazilian scientists doing field work, do you want to get rid of those too?
[Not the same thing, though I do think it would be interesting in a larger context of cultural information at the zoo if we saw the "normal" Western-style houses of the researchers at home, and their jewelry and such.]
5. This is an example of colonialism and globalization, and is similar to England's use of artifacts stolen from conquered peoples to educate about those peoples.
[Sadly really hard to hear, maybe on a mobile phone, and wasn't given much time.]
Conclusions and interesting points:
Everyone seemed to be pleased by the discussion at the forum Wednesday, and the zoo is now setting up an advisory council. Everyone but Kakuta seemed to agree that the exhibit would be improved by incorporating the views of dissenters.
I found Kakuta's attitude a little disturbing in its lack of sympathy for people who said they were being hurt by his actions. For instance, Femi mentioned that people in his Nigerian-American community have been asked whether they live with animals, and he had a great point that, when Kakuta returns to Kenya, Femi will still be here dealing with the messages that are sent right now. I do think everyone is trying to get this right, though. Kakuta is working really hard at what he thinks is good for his community, and it's true that this is a positive image of Africa that may help counteract the ideas of Africa as a place inundated by violence and abject poverty.
My favorite panelist turned out to be Stephanie. At the beginning of the conversation, she talks about being shocked at the replica village and concerned that her two-year-old son will ask why Africans belong in a zoo, which put me off a bit because I didn't see a problem in the actual exhibit myself. Later, though, she was very patient in saying that the exhibit's quality is less the point than the larger context, and that we can't divorce ourselves from American history (i.e., the idea of the POC who are closer to nature) so easily. That agreed so much with things I've read (and said!) that I was persuaded to her point of view.
The main fallacy from the zoo staff was, I think, that as a single institution they can't or shouldn't have to produce all the context for this exhibit themselves. Kakuta seemed mainly to want parents to educate their own children, while Lisa was more focused on other institutions presenting different aspects of Africa, but I think both those approaches are flawed. You can't count on zoo patrons to be highly educated; in Seattle, your chances are pretty good, but plenty of people with college degrees are not well informed about other cultures or actively fighting the racism that's crept into their heads while they weren't looking. Furthermore, you can't count on zoo patrons to go to art museums. The zoo draws lots of different kinds of people, many of whom don't have a lot of time or money for family outings, and a zoo crowd is a younger crowd than is likely to have a good time at museums. "We're doing fine, it's the rest of the world who hasn't caught up" is true, but in order to educate beneficially it's necessary to pitch the message to the people in the world we actually live in. In this case, that means more information about the rest of Africa directly available at the zoo.
Suggestions:
Here's the really obvious one: Rename the replica village. "African Village" sounds like it's from anywhere in Africa, exactly the impression that no one wants to give. Name it something more specific, maybe even the same name as Kakuta's village, after which it's modeled, and then explain more about its being in a part of Kenya. There's a big map of Africa on the wall of the school building there now, but the relevant area isn't marked, and size without context really doesn't tell people much.
I do think it's the zoo's responsibility to contextualize the exhibit better. A good form of enrichment might be a mural, in part of the village or near it, which would show the cultures and biomes and cities in Africa that aren't part of the zoo's representation of the Maasai village and savanna.
(In unrelated zoo news, we have a baby Malayan tapir, who is adorable.)