Talk:Ota Benga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
Who is Gordon? "Hornaday caved in under the pressure and released Ota Benga to Gordon, who placed him in the Howard Colored Children's Orphan Asylum sponsored by his church." Lapaz
- OK, I answered that one. Now who is Moses? Outriggr 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] White washed and incomplete account
The article has a tone of Darwinism and I'd suggest reading more accounts to get the real story of Oto Benga and the other's put on display. For example, HE didn't have his teeth drilled down, his master had it done to give a greater "animalistic" effect. In addition, he was forced to do tricks with the monkeys and orangutans they placed in the cage to live with him after he was on display at the World's Fair. He was assaulted constantly by the whites visiting the Bronx zoo. Between King Leopold, who wiped out over 10 million in the Congo, and Americans, Oto Benga didn't have a chance. He couldn't afford a ticket home, spent time wandering around America, after the zoo kicked him out for fighting back, saying it was too much of a liability to keep him. He killed himself because he couldn't return home. He'd been married 2-3 times, according to the account you read. I sure wish I could read a non biased and complete account of this poor man's life.
- Responding to this unsigned comment - I completely disagree. The article, if anything, has a sympathetic tone, and I have no idea what you mean by "a tone of Darwinism" and "white washed [sic]". Given the nature of the topic, there are going to be varying accounts regarding Benga's specific experiences in the zoo, but nothing you have mentioned is in contrast to the general presentation in the article of Benga's experiences. Incidentally—fix it yourself to prove the article wrong, if you feel it's wrong. Outriggr 16:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article is fairly accurate from what I know. The details of abuse you mention should be added providing you source them. Which you can as I think/know what you're saying is true. One aspect that's viewed with a certain discomfort is that I believe many of the African Americans who wanted to save him also viewed him as a child, hence they put him in an orphanage, and I believe felt they had to convert him. In that era many blacks often had a surprisingly negative view of Africa and I remember reading how some blacks once considered "African" or even "African American" to be a kind of racial slur. I'm largely meaning in the period before UNIA and Pan-Africanism gained importance, which might be too early to be relevant here.--T. Anthony 07:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have begun trying to improve and reference this article. The objector above, for example, will find a reference contesting his claim that Benga's "master" filed his teeth down. I have incorporated some information on the Belgian/Congolese army that slaughtered Benga's village.
Also, one user added a {disputed} tag to the page, while leaving no comment as to why; this was recently and reasonably removed by another editor. I would have otherwise. (FWIW, I am not sanctioning the nonsensical, untrue title of this section, "White washed and incomplete account", by writing under it!) –Outʀiggʀ 00:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPR story
NPR story I'm not that interested hacking this article but I heard this on the radio and it has stuff not in the article. --Gbleem 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intro Paragraph - what the heck?
"The exhibit was intended to promote the theory that humans evolved from primates, as well as eugenics, and scientific racism."
The refference for this claim is a book which I can't verify, and it doesn't even list a page number. I therefore suspect that this is a POV claim. The reason? It says "humans evolved from primates". There is no such theory. Humans still ARE primates. There is no theory that we "evolved from primates", because we never STOPPED being primates. I assume this sentence was added as POV, maybe by a disgruntled creationist. It's definately "scientific racism", but the "evolved from primates" sentence makes it clear that who ever wrote that sentence doesn't understand evolution. Therefore I removed that part of the sentence. If the source is real, than it should say that it was intended to promote "the common descent of humans and other apes", not "the theory that humans evolved from primates". If there is a verifiable source, feel free to add a corrected version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.122.167 (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree that the wording needs to be changed, and I should have caught that earlier. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
