Clearly, the display was not lost on the public of the day. It was Darwin’s views that caused this small man to be viewed as an evolutionary ‘throwback’.
Daily Telegraph Mirror, 26 Aug 1994.
Article image and caption, with attribution for photo.
Clearly, the display was not lost on the public of the day. It was Darwin’s views that caused this small man to be viewed as an evolutionary ‘throwback’.
Daily Telegraph Mirror, 26 Aug 1994.
Article image and caption, with attribution for photo.
As reported in July 2020, The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS, which runs the zoo) said:
“We deeply regret that many people and generations have been hurt by these actions or by our failure previously to publicly condemn and denounce them,” WCS President and CEO Cristián Samper wrote.
“We recognize that overt and systemic racism persists, and our institution must play a greater role to confront it.”
But was it really racism?
...
The apology misses the mark, completely.
As part of its mission to be more transparent, WCS is making all records and archives related to Benga publicly available.
While being politically correct and being swept up in a cultural tide, they are actually failing to be transparent. Although the zoo apologized for this racist action, nowhere in the zoo’s apologies or statements do they mention the real reason Ota Benga was put on display.
It was a belief in evolution, as clearly stated by the main players of the day themselves.
All five owners associated with Ota Benga—Samuel Verner, William McGee, William Hornaday, Henry Osborn, and Madison Grant—were well-known evolutionists of their day.”
Google Ishi the Indian and U.C. Berkeley.
They did it in September 1906 without a word from the New York Times.