Ethnological Congresses
43
Section that discusses similarities and differences in Ethnological Congresses, Spectacles, and shows a timeline of development.
plain
2021-04-29T17:16:31-07:00
More than mere entertainment, the circus was a window on the outside world for Americans with limited opportunities for travel.
—Benita Stambler and Jennifer Lemmer Posey, "The Oriental India Poster"
Spectacles and ethnological congresses shared some similarities, including being promoted as educational programs, but while spectacles emphasized the theatrical, ethnological congresses emphasized the anthropological aspects of viewing people from other cultures.40 Ethnological congresses and other similar displays of people tended to be presented outside the main circus tent, unlike the spectacles that often opened or closed the circus show. The ethnological shows began in Europe and America, with the latter sometimes blurring the line between sideshows and the later ethnological congresses. As the 19th century wore on, sideshows, for example, increasingly incorporated a category referred to as "exotics" that featured performers billed as "Fiji cannibals" or "Zulu Warriors."41 Performers such as William Henry Johnson, known to audiences as Zip, "the What is it?" were vaguely described as being from "Central Africa" (despite being American) and this became a central part of the billing. The related pamphlets sold alongside his performances at Barnum's American Museum (and later at traveling circuses) presented a fully fabricated background presented in the form of an anthropological description, using wording such as "he has been examined by some of the most scientific men we have..."42 to give credibility to claims of study and authenticity. Sideshow acts, however, were still usually presented somewhat differently than the people found in the ethnological congresses in that they were often presented as one-of-a-kind performers as opposed to "typical" representatives of a culture. Ethnological congresses and shows tended to present groups of people, often in the menagerie area alongside animals and with dress, weapons, religious objects, cooking implements, and backdrops that placed them in a context asserted to be a natural environment. This aligned with the rise of travel and expedition writing and the associated armchair tourism that offered Americans and Europeans a glimpse of the world tied up in perceived adventure that had clear overtones of colonialism. Benita Stambler and Jennifer Lemmer Posey note that "for the layperson, exhibitions, circuses, photographs, and illustrations in popular print media provided intimate experiences with unfamiliar customs and people without the burdens of foreign travel.43
Circuses in the nineteenth century tended to emphasize "exotic otherness" by contrasting presentations of what was viewed as "refined" (European or American cultures) and "uncivilized" (non-Western cultures). This resulted in often sumptuous and elaborate displays of people and customs that were nonetheless meant to emphasize difference in a paternalistic and voyeristic way. The movement from sideshows and spectacles presenting other cultures in a theatrical way to more specifically ethnographical displays where entire cultures were presented in a kind of representative shorthand is significant.44 The circus had a role in both spreading and reinforcing the dominant colonialist ideas about power dynamics, race, and culture, and this heightened with the development of more ethnological congresses in the 1890s. These displays were a departure from the earlier Congress of Nations spectacles, building on that idea while stripping away some of the theatrical elements. These ethnological congresses of the 1890s were presented as opportunities for audiences to engage in pseudo-scientific study of the people on display--"a neatly packaged study of other cultures" that aligned with and was billed as extending the educational mission of the circus menagerie.45
.jpg){kind=link}
