Ethnological expositions at Frankfurt Zoo - a dissociation

Frankfurt Zoo is the second oldest zoo in Germany. In its more than 160-year history, it has been shaped by its directors, by local developments, by scientific insights and, of course, by major social and political trends and events. The largest impacts resulted from both world wars. The colonial period also left its mark and is a chapter in the zoo’s history which needs to be addressed and processed.

Between 1878 and 1931, more than two dozen so-called ethnological exhibitions took place at Frankfurt Zoo, as well as two exhibitions of Krao, a girl with physical peculiarities.

Entrepreneurs, such as Carl Hagenbeck, organised these exhibitions and displayed them in attractive venues such as zoos and museums. Hagenbeck began hiring people from "his animal trapping areas" in 1874 and bringing them to Europe together with their everyday belongings as well as the captured animals. It is documented that work contracts existed and wages were also paid. However, it can be assumed that the majority of those recruited were hardly able to read and interpret the contracts. There is evidence that, for some, the tours ended in disaster. An example: a group of Labrador Inuit contracted Smallpox after staying in Frankfurt in 1881 and subsequently died. Even in the event that the journey to Europe was undertaken voluntarily, it can be assumed that the demonstrations of everyday and family life often crossed the line into humiliation. It is also clear that the long absence from home, the foreign climate, the permanent publicity and many other factors must have been extremely stressful.

From today's perspective, these ethnological exhibitions must be criticised as inhumane and unacceptable. Using education as an excuse, which may have played a role at the time, takes a back seat to the commercial interests of the organisers, the desire to show off and the demonstration of a widespread feeling of superiority towards the foreign people on display. The sometimes considerable suffering of those affected was apparently accepted by a majority of the initiators and the public. Even if ethnological expositions and similar phenomena should be seen in their historical context, this does not legitimize them. A reappraisal and discussion of the topic is absolutely necessary to raise awareness of present and future generations.