This page is referenced by:

• 1 2020-12-02T14:34:30-08:00 Native Performance and Identity in The Wild West Show 108 by Mariah Wahl plain 1040267 2021-06-11T17:38:12-07:00

  by Mariah Wahl
  
  The narrative of this chapter explores the forced and harmful relocation of Native communities by the US government. It also references abuses perpetuated through the Indian Boarding School system. Although explicit images of violence and harm have not been included, much of the language and imagery is distressing in that it exemplifies colonial and exploitative practices. Many of the terms used in primary source materials are outdated and racist. Whenever possible, appropriate terminology used by the Native groups in question has replaced racist or outdated terminology.

  Land Acknowledgement & Author’s Statement

  Illinois State University sits on the sovereign land of the Kiikaapoi (Kickapoo), Peoria, Kaskaskia, Myaamia and Očhéthi Šakówiŋ peoples. We recognize that the Circus routes identified in these books traversed and disrupted the Native land of countless tribes across the United States. Our goal in sharing these archival histories is not to replace or undermine the Native histories that preceded the circus and that persist as ongoing cultural practices. Rather, we hope to hold the historic routes of the circus alongside the genocide and forced relocation of Native communities and use a history of circus routes to further elucidate those atrocities. We hope that, simultaneously, our chapter will uncover stories of joy, subversive action, and resilience in Native communities. As a white researcher and library worker, I hope to use this narrative to make space for the Native and Indigenous voices of history, rather than super-imposing my own.
  

  Manifest Destiny and the Fantasy of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West
  
  

  The most prominent figure of the Wild West show is inarguably William “Buffalo Bill” Cody. It requires acknowledgement that, although Buffalo Bill’s show enabled the limited performance and cultural expression of Native performers, he was ultimately an appropriative cultural figure who profited from the exploitation of Native performers imprisoned on Indian reservations with limited means to make money. Still, Buffalo Bill’s goal of an “authentic” Wild West show made space for the cultural expression of many of his performers, and the opportunity to be viewed as skilled horsemen and warriors, rather than as the undomesticated portrayal sought after by an increasingly industrialized world. Cody himself changed the script of his show from a performance of his own feats in overcoming Indian warriors, to a celebration of their accomplishments and culture (albeit, within a white-washed and stereotypical context).

  Only in the early twentieth century, as the United States had consolidated its hold on the North American West and was extending its power into the Caribbean and Pacific, did historians begin to describe manifest destiny as something that it never was in the nineteenth century: a consensus.
  - Andrew C. Isenberg and Thomas Richards Jr., Alternative Wests: Rethinking Manifest Destiny

  The cultural idea of Manifest Destiny, or the white supremacy-fueled belief that 19th century settler-colonists were “destined” to “civilize” the United States is a legend that echoes throughout American cultural notions of our history. The fantasy of the Wild West and its figurehead, the cowboy, are cemented in 20th century cultural memory as heroic visionaries of the pioneering age. 21st century media relies heavily on the undercurrent of Manifest Destiny in its depictions of the historic and present-day West. Historians, even those who push back against the narrative of Manifest Destiny, still allude to the inevitably of American preeminence in society. This ignores that many American settlers in the mid-19th century, even those in the south and the west, did not desire to conquer or belittle the Native groups that already lived there. The dominance of this narrative would be established later, through a romanticized combination of historical and artistic depictions of the west.
  
  But this fantasy of the wild wild west never existed. In the rapidly industrializing world of the early 20th century, workers “needed a fantasy of preindustrial, rural society to compensate them for the loss of community and nature in their real lives.” In a time of growing global and domestic conflict, the United States also needed a vehicle of US Nationalism (specifically, white nationalism) to enforce class and racial divides and maintain a labor force. The Circus and the Wild West show provided respite for the working American at the turn of the century, and gave them a story that enforced their belief in the supremacy of an industrialized society.
  
  The narrative of the fantastic wild west of old was sold to American audiences through the performance of Native Americans, Mexican Vaqueros, and other entertainers. Beginning with Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show and perpetuated through numerous iterations of “The Western,” this notion of the west delighted audiences. But even in wild west show performances of the 19th century, the myth of the whiteness of the west is revealed as a farce. The cowboy himself is the descendent of the Mexican Vaquero tradition, a style of roping and riding popularized by performers such as Vicente Oropeza and Jose Esquivel. Many Black and Native performers also performed as Cowboys, including famous “bulldogger” Bill Pickett. 
  
  In the specific context of manifest destiny, wild west performances established the now cliche conflict of “Cowboys and Indians,” providing audiences with dramatized reenactments of mid-19th century colonial conflicts for control of Native land. In spite of this binary narrative, performances within the show belied the more nuanced and complex nature of performing “manifest destiny” for audiences of the Wild West show. One researcher uncovered a letter from a Native couple who traveled with the Miller 101 show in the early 20th century, writing “I do like the show life but would like to know if I could be a cowboy and my wife a cowgirl when I come back. . . . I don’t mind to take the part in the show as we did, but my wife likes the cowgirl life and I like the cowboy life.¹” Both performers went on to entertain audiences as cowboys that season.
  
  In spite of the whiteness of manifest destiny underlying the show, wild west performances ironically demonstrated the non-American and non-white origins of the cowboy and the west itself. Native entertainers whose presence was intended to cement the predominance of the US Imperial project instead unraveled the notion of manifest destiny for what it was - mere performance.

  Redface and Minstrelsy in the Wild West Show

  Native performances of the Wild West show have often been classified as minstrelsy and “Redface,” appropriately acknowledging that so-called "Show Indians" were forced by their circumstances to perform “Indianness” in a specific context for primarily white American and European audiences. The Wild West Show thrived on a primarily white American audience's desire for the "Old West," a vision of the past that never truly existed outside of white American cultural memory, but persists through 20th and 21st iterations of the Western in media.² In the Buffalo Bill Wild West show, battle scenes were specifically designed to enhance not only the perceived wildness of the Native performers, but the heroism and dignity of white American soldiers. Ironically, Native performers were sometimes cast as a completely different non-white antagonist, as seen in Buffalo Bill's reenactment of battles in the Spanish-American war, featuring an entirely Native American cast of Spaniards.³ By caricaturizing Native American performers as an indistinguishable "other," Buffalo Bill and other show-runners contributed to, and in some ways perfected, many racist stereotypes about Native Americans that persist to this day. One such example of racist storytelling can be found in the media portrayal of the arrest of Charging Thunder, a performer charged with assault after allegedly consuming "a few drops" of whiskey. This media coverage, spread widely and early in that season's tour, likely encouraged audience attendance by Britains eager to experience the "uncivilized" nature of Native performers firsthand.⁴ If Buffalo Bill had the power to limit such press, he certainly didn't use it.

  The Indian Boarding School System and "Wild Westing"

  Although the Wild West show was a controversial and corrupt institution, it was a relatively lesser evil in the context of larger U.S. colonial policy. A particularly egregious example of the United States anti-Indigenous policies can be explored in the Indian Boarding School system. Beginning in 1891, children were forcibly taken from their families without parental consent and forced to forego Native dress and cultural practices in favor of "civilized" (white) culture. Students like Samuel Lone Bear were relocated far away from home at a very young age in pursuit of this mission. Henry Pratt, founder of the Carlisle School, made clear the aims of the project: "The children would be hostages for the good behavior of the [Native] people." ⁵ Inarguably, the Carlisle School was the site of horrific abuse and a clear project of cultural genocide. 
  In spite of its shortcomings, the Wild West show sometimes offered an escape from forced practices of assimilation. Buffalo Bill Cody often placed his show in subtle opposition to the Indian Boarding school movement, most publicly in his exposition just outside of the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893. Cody had been intentionally excluded from the exposition, and made the choice to perform right outside of it in such a way that many visitors assumed his show was part of the official lineup of exhibits. In contrast to the dull, “civilized” display of the boarding school by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cody’s colorful and engaging performance won audiences over with its authentic display of Native American song and dance.⁶
  
  Ironically, the Carlisle Indian School, was also a popular recruiting pipeline for the "Oskate Wicasa" meaning, "one who performs."⁷ Showrunners, including Pawnee Bill, Buffalo Bill Cody, and Adam Forepaugh, would use the school as a platform to recruit Native performers into "wild westing," as it was often ironically referred to by performers. The Bureau of Indian Affairs allowed this recruitment because in many ways, the Wild West show supported their propaganda for white assimilation and against the preservation of Native cultures and lifestyles. In spite of this, the show provided the opportunity for many families to travel together and practice their culture onstage. ⁸ Although the Wild West Show was undoubtedly exploitative, and often relied on racist caricature for entertainment, it was in some ways preferable to life in a boarding school or on a reservation. Buffalo Bill in particular prided himself on authentically representing the culture of the Lakota Sioux, and their performance onstage often provided an opportunity for intentionally subversive and ironic commentary in front of a mostly white audience. In many ways, "wild westing" was a chance to rebel against the white assimilationist project of the Indian Boarding School system and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

  The Ghost Dance Movement

  One instance of cultural rebellion is the Ghost Dance, a messianic religious movement that was popular among the Lakota Sioux near the end of. the 19th century. Popularized by a Northern Paiute man named Wovoka (born Quoitze Owalso) the dance became popular as a hopeful ceremony and song performed with the intention of restoring a pre-Colonial existence to Native Americans in the United States. Because the message was particularly resonant on reservations struggling under the poor conditions imposed by the US Government, it was popular with the Lakota Sioux of the Pine Ridge Reservation of South Dakota, led by Chief (and Buffalo Bill Wild West Show performer) Sitting Bull. The dance reached its peak popularity on the Pine Ridge reservation in 1890.
  
  

  Hear a recording of the ghost dance ceremony here.

  In spite of its overtly peaceful performance, white reservation officials viewed the Ghost Dance Movement as an immediate threat to their wellbeing, as well as to US Indian policy. They took immediate action to stop the ceremony's performance, arresting Chief Sitting Bull and killing him in the process. The Ghost Dance Movement was outlawed, and the people of the Pine Ridge Reservation suffered greatly when the US Army responded two days later in the events now called the Massacre at Wounded Knee. This massacre is sometimes considered the final act of genocide in the US government’s quest to eliminate Native culture and community - but that does not account for the subversive cultural practices of Native communities all over the country, and the thriving cultural practices of Native groups today.

  Reclamation and Subversion in Native Performances of the Wild West Show

  Performances within the Wild West show, preceding and following the Ghost Dance movement, were ripe with opportunities to subvert public opinions of Native communities and to perpetuate cultural practices that the US government attempted to eliminate. Many performers arrested for their participation in the Ghost Dance Movement were granted permission by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs to travel with Buffalo Bill and Pawnee Bill’s Wild West shows. This created an opportunity for ghost dance prisoners to sing and dance in public performance, an act of worthy of status and recognition, and a violation of the restrictions placed upon them by the US government.
  
  We have little recorded information about the specific content of the songs and dances performed in Wild West Shows, but know that Buffalo Bill encouraged his performers to sing songs associated with actual Lakota cultural events and ceremonies. Because white audiences, and Buffalo Bill himself, had little or no understanding of the songs of Native Performers, many sang ironically about the victory and strength of their warriors even while performing battles intended to demonstrate white superiority: “war dances presented in Wild West shows could have been victory songs about the battle against Custer at Little Bighorn, for example."⁹ It’s possible that many formerly imprisoned ghost dance performers sang and enacted the rituals of the Ghost Dance Movement, banned on the reservation, for thousands of audience members across the United States.

  The Continued Battle for Sovereignty and the LandBack Movement

  Native performers have continuously battled for the the right to live and exist in accordance with their own cultural practices, working to undo the lapsed treaties and land stolen by the US government in the 19th and 20th centuries. Iron White Man, a warrior in the battle of the Greasy Grass (Battle of the Little Bighorn) was a notable performer with both the Buffalo Bill and Pawnee Bill Wild West Show. In a public and risky act of subversion, he testified before the US Supreme Court in January of 1930, helping to establish Custer’s responsibility for the atrocities of that battle. His testimony, along with decades of activism by other Native Americans, culminated in the 1980 ruling of the US vs the Sioux Nation that lands had indeed been stolen from the Sioux of South Dakota. In spite of the Sioux Nation’s desire to have their lands returned, the US Supreme Court instead elected to pay the value of that land. At the date of this writing, the Sioux have refused that money (estimated to be $1.7 billion) on the principal that land and it’s protection is their sacred duty, and not something measurable in white-colonial constructs of land ownership and exchange.
  

  Any conversation about Native history that suggests Native community and political protest is the domain of the past ignores ongoing struggles and organizing. Native culture and political agency persist to this day, in defiance of the genocide enacted agianst them. For that reason, I trace the subversive actions of Native performers to the modern-day movement for sovereignty, specifically the movement to return Native lands to their rightful communities.
  
  The LandBack movement describes in its official manifesto the goals of:

  1. Dismantling white supremacy structures that forcefully removed us from our Lands and continue to keep our Peoples in oppression

  2. Defunding white supremacy and the mechanisms and systems that enforce it and disconnect us from stewardship of the Land.

  3. Returning all public lands into Indigenous hands.

  4. Consent — Moving us out of an era of consultation and into a new era of policy around Free and Prior Informed Consent.

  Though the struggle is difficult and ongoing, the political action of the LandBack movement has seen victories. Most recently as of this writing, the state of Minnesota returned 114 acres of land to the Lower Sioux Community, rightfully restoring their custodianship over the land called Cansa'yapi (Dakota for "where they marked the trees red"), the sight of the beginning of the US-Dakota war of 1862.

  The Native performers of Buffalo Bill were exploited and undermined as “Show Indians,” but their legacy is powerful. Their subversive and persistent actions allowed them to survive, providing a living for themselves, their families, and their communities. It also allowed for the subversive maintenance of their culture in a white-supremacist context: spreading songs, dances, and traditional dress across the United States via the routes of Circus and Wild West shows. To this day, their impact can be felt in the vibrant and ongoing celebration of Native culture across Turtle Island. Continue exploring this chapter to learn more about the individual performers of the wild west show and their lasting impact.

• 1 media/136480BE-C668-444F-BE4E-FDA0A3DFCD1D.jpeg 2021-03-28T14:56:18-07:00 Social Constructions 66 plain 2021-04-29T17:54:11-07:00
  SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND THE SPREAD OF IDEAS
  The sideshow relied on a presentation of the authentic body—or at least a claim to authenticity—that was in reality a highly staged encounter. While it’s troubling to think about the display of human beings as passive exhibits—or indeed to read earlier language describing them as displays—objectification and commodification of people was a central part of marketing sideshow performances in the mid-nineteenth through the early twentieth centuries.¹³ Robert Bogdan describes two patterns of presentation that dominated the sideshow industry: “the exotic, which cast the exhibit as a strange creature from a little-known part of the world; and the aggrandized, which endowed the freak with status-enhancing characteristics."¹⁴ The former category included acts such as the “Wild Men of Borneo” and William Henry Johnson’s portrayal of “Zip, the What-Is-It?” while the latter category included performers such as General Tom Thumb—significantly, all of the backstories presented about these performers were complete fabrications. Despite the similar use of exaggeration or outright falsehood employed in constructing the sideshow performers’ identities, this essay is focused on the “exotic” mode because of the way it reflected and informed larger social and cultural constructs, and how it permeated other parts of the circus, such as the grand spectacle shows.
  
  The sideshow acts and spectacles that focused on non-Western cultures were an outgrowth and extension of the curiosity that audiences in Europe and the United States had about unfamiliar cultures,¹⁵ and the particular presentations reinforced a racist hierarchy that was an inevitable effect of imperialism in the wake of British colonization and American expansion. The exotic mode of presentation was in many ways a logical complement to the “patriotic spectacles” that valorized the discovery and militaristic expansion activities of U.S. and European civilizations, such as Barnum & Bailey’s 1892 spectacle Columbus and the Discovery of America.¹⁶ In the decades leading up to this, P.T. Barnum and other showmen were already reflecting an undercurrent of colonial ideologies in their circuses and museum shows. In 1874 Barnum featured a Grand Procession of the Congress of Nations to open the show at his Roman Hippodrome in New York City; this show depicted the imperial courts of the world, but was actually staffed with circus extras filling these roles.
  
  
  In 1879 Barnum’s traveling Greatest Show on Earth featured a group of Zulu Warriors that was so popular as a ring act, showing “barbarous” displays of dancing and spear throwing, that it “paved the way for an increasing number of ethnological acts and exhibitions in the years that followed, most notably the so-called Ethnological Congresses that featured people drawn from around the globe.”¹⁷ These Congresses, exhibited in the menagerie tent with the performers appearing alongside animals from their homelands, were billed as educational events, “illuminating ‘specimens’ of their respective races.”¹⁸
  
  This shift toward large displays that positioned certain performers in terms of their “otherness” and “primitive exoticism”¹⁹ placed them as part of a shorthand for American understandings of non-Western cultures. This shorthand included the use of identifiers such as “Pygmy”, “Bushman”, and “Zulu” (sometimes interchangeably) to describe African performers regardless of their ethnic, national, or cultural affiliation,²⁰ and often extended to identifying any Black performer as African, regardless of their nationality.
  
  The mixture of Western imperialism and exploration, along with newly emerging “popular” understandings of evolution²¹ (and the body of pseudoscientific knowledge that arose around it) fed into a cultural move to project Western understandings and desires onto the people and cultures of previously remote areas of the world.²² This tendency to rationalize objectification by couching it in so-called legitimate study was already deeply embedded in the sideshow world, with Rachel Adams noting that “freak shows had always drawn on ethnographic and medical discourses to grant legitimacy to the fantastic narratives they wove around the bodies on display.”²³ The commentaries of doctors, explorers, and scientists were used to present the sideshow performers’ narratives and to create the printed biographical sketches that often accompanied the acts. These narratives were usually fabrications, but the testimony of “experts” added a sense of authenticity. The increasing cultural fascination with “exotic” cultures meant that sideshows began to “employ more non-white performers” who were billed as “savages, cannibals, and missing links,” and that the authoritative voices of the fake “professors” and “doctors” who presented pseudoethnographic narratives about them lent credibility to the educational claims of most circuses at the time. In fact, “anthropological exhibits at freak shows often provided American audiences with their primary source of information about the non-Western world.”²⁴
  
  Sideshows took advantage of the growing interest in scientific inquiry and the language used to describe Western expansion by blending travel narratives—a type of literature that was marketed as a safe and moral way for people to learn about the broader world, conveniently compiled by those adventurous enough to experience it—with current events, scientific writings, and ethnological studies²⁵ to produce the backstories and biographical sketches of performers. This way of presenting the exotic in the context of contemporary social views was further expanded when sideshow performers were billed as “prehistoric” in some way. Ann McKenzie Garascia explains more generally that:

  “Mapping the ancient world onto the British Empire’s little-explored outposts produced a spatialized dimension of time: a phenomenon in which moving further away from the modern center of the empire was represented as moving back further in time. This ratified the practice of taxonomical ranking [of] geographically dispersed populations by banishing them to a ‘permanently anterior time’²⁶ within modernity.”²⁷

  
  The American sideshow capitalized on the idea of presenting non-Western cultures through a temporal lens in part by casting certain individuals into the role of “throwbacks” or “prehistoric” figures. One of the most notable examples of this was Barnum’s characterization, beginning in 1860, of Zip, the What-Is-It, as a “missing link.” The biographical sketch narrative sold at Barnum’s museum places him in a suspended time and place, exemplifying how “freak shows sought to ritualize physical and cultural difference through the “show space,”²⁸ a confluence of time and space that materialized historically specific relationships between colonizers and colonized.”²⁹
  
  The positioning of people as primitive reinforced some of the dominant cultural narratives in both America and Europe, where “colonized people were often read as child-like—in need of the nurturing, civilizing force of the colonizing nation.”^{30 31} In relation to America specifically, Janet Davis points out that the “circus Americanized also reinforced a status quo of exclusion and inequality with its performances of racial hierarchy under the big top and sideshow…”³²
  
  If, as Paul Bouissac noted, the circus has been “a kind of mirror in which culture is reflected, condensed and at the same time transcended,”³³ and considering the advertising claims of edification for all people that were mentioned earlier in this essay, the framing of sideshow performers and those appearing in ethnological congress processions would have both reflected and taught deeply ingrained and troubling ideas about America’s relationship to other people and cultures around the world.
  
  RISE OF THE RAILROAD SHOW
  In America the circus became a form of mass cultural entertainment with few rivals in large part because of national expansion and the use of railroads to travel huge distances. The entertainment was inexpensive and accessible, with widely publicized educational goals “to instruct the minds of all classes”³⁴ aligning with “a cultural imaginary [of] the frontier [that] nurtured exceptionalist myths and symbols regarding the nation’s representative republican government …”³⁵
  
  Barnum’s Greatest Show on Earth was traveling exclusively by train in 1872, expanding the show’s reach by increasing the distance the show could travel. Around this time Barnum’s partner William Cameron Coup also pioneered the use of chartered excursion trains that could bring in spectators from surrounding areas.³⁶ The crowds that flocked to the circus came from around town and from the surrounding area, ensuring that large circuses had reach into both the urban and rural communities near where they stopped. Newspapers frequently listed crowd sizes as part of the coverage of the day—it added to the spectacular quality of the already outsized operation. Janet Davis describes a journalist in 1890 writing of Barnum & Bailey’s that “a great sea of faces stretched out in every direction, representing all of the country thirty miles around.”³⁷ The use of excursion trains on the performance day greatly helped with this because they were marketed to bring people to the more centralized site where the circus was appearing. The trains were often advertised to arrive before the free morning parade and depart again after the show, ensuring that people had opportunities to be immersed in the action throughout the day. This use of trains to both transport the vast circus shows and ensure that droves of people showed up on performance day continued well into the twentieth century.
  
  The movement, reach, and appeal of the circus is significant here, and can be traced in part through the route books published at the end of a season. These books include various pieces of information, including listings of circus staff and performers, but they also include detailed accounts of ticket sales and the dates and towns where the circus stopped.³⁸ This information underscores how the late nineteenth and early twentieth century proliferation of ideas about science, medicine, and ethnology, coupled with deeply-embedded colonialist ideas about the non-Western world, were solidified into a narrative that circuses, especially through sideshows and staged spectacles, helped to spread.³⁹ 
  
   
• 1 2021-01-28T08:49:17-08:00 Ethnological Congresses and the Spectacle 58 by Rebecca Fitzsimmons plain 1048207 2023-11-16T14:04:39-08:00 by Rebecca Fitzsimmons

  Perhaps the circus seems to stand outside the culture only because it is at its very center.
                                        — Paul Bouissac, in Circus and Culture: A Semiotic Approach

  INTRODUCTION
  The Golden Age of Circus is deeply embedded in the cultural history of the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.¹ The circus had nearly unimaginable levels of dazzle and excitement, coupled with a tremendous geographic reach. Many businesses and schools closed down when the circus arrived in town, making “Circus Day” the almost singular focus of attention. The arrival of a traveling show brought out local residents, but also people from the surrounding area as circus excursion trains encouraged spectators to travel to the centralized venue. In fact, the size of the crowds that flocked to the circus lot were often a focus of attention, with newspapers reporting on the totals as a part of the larger picture of the incredible scale of operations.² It is through that reach that the large circus shows also had a platform to shout ideas, many of which positioned the circus as a form of mass culture that “had tremendous power to help shape audiences’ ideas about the expanding nation-state and its changing position in world affairs."³
  
  Marian Murray has described the circus as a site where “Brilliance runs side by side with dinginess; comedy with horror; the meretricious with the genuine; the mediocre with the sublime."⁴ It's in those blurred lines and in-between spaces where the “experiential inversion of reality and fantasy unique to the circus” ⁵ was probably most able to exert its cultural influence. The authoritative presentation of ideas, billed as “educational and ‘uplifting’,”⁶ was coupled with the utter immersion of audiences in the brilliant sights and sounds around them. In particular, when applied to the spectacle and menagerie portions of the show, this would have offered a chance for spectators to have an experience that must have truly skirted the line between authentic⁷ and staged environments. The idea that “the circus acts as a reflective space for not only self-regard, but also for broader cultural evaluation” ⁸may not have been at the forefront of an average circus-goer’s mind, but as we will explore in this essay the underlying messages would have been there nonetheless.
  
  The circus was a site for myriad forms of entertainment, but the main focus of this essay is on the grand spectacle—often known as the “spec” in the circus world—and the sideshow. It is in these two places that the circus was most outwardly able to project itself as a synthesis of entertainment and education for the masses. Beginning in the 1870s, P.T. Barnum began to relentlessly advertise that his circus was “moral, instructive, and family-friendly,”⁹ relying in large part on his menagerie shows. The advertising of this instructional aim, however, quickly began expanding to include the sideshow as a site of ethnological study (a presentation framing that had already been in place from earlier museum exhibits). The spectacle was similarly billed as a tool for edification, but the implied hierarchy of Western cultures generally and American exceptionalism more specifically was a deeply ingrained message of these performances, whether historical dramas or patriotic reenactments. ¹⁰
  
  It is also these parts of the performance that are likely to be some of the most controversial and ethically tenuous, raising questions about exploiting people and solidifying societal ideas of “normalcy” and “otherness”,¹¹ and about the possibility of agency within a structure that was largely built on “unequal social relations, oppression, and exploitation.”¹²