Some of the inhabitants of the 1914 Kongolandsbyen (image via Wikimedia)

Some of the inhabitants of the 1914 Kongolandsbyen (image via Wikimedia)

Tomorrow, to mark the 200th anniversary of Norway’s constitution, two artists will open a human zoo in Oslo. “European Attraction Limited,” as the project is called, is actually a re-creation of a racist human zoo that Norway hosted in 1914, when the country celebrated the centennial of its constitution with a world’s fair. The reenactment is being organized by artists Mohamed Ali Fadlabi and Lars Cuzner, who were born in Sudan and Sweden, respectively, but both currently live and work in Oslo.

On the website for the project, the artists offer an explanation of how “European Attraction Limited” came about:

Three years ago we stumbled upon information about a human zoo that had taken place in the heart of Oslo in 1914. Not being from this country, naturally, we assumed that this was common knowledge among natives, so, in an interest to learn more about the general consent on the exhibition, we started asking around. As it turned out pretty much no one we talked to had ever heard about it (even if they had heard of human zoos in other countries). Given how popular the exhibition was (1.4 million visitors saw it at a time when the population of Norway was 2 million) the widespread absence of at least a general knowledge was surprising. It is hard to understand the mechanisms of how something could be wiped from the collective memory.

From there Fadlabi and Cuzner decided to reenact the zoo, not only to stir the Norwegian collective memory but also to trace connections between the racism of early-20th-century Europe and “a more contemporary idea of superiority of goodness” that the artists say abounds in their adopted country.

The original Norwegian zoo, called Kongolandsbyen, or “Congo village,” actually housed 80 people from Senegal. They were placed in palm-roof cabins, dressed like “traditional Africans,” and put on display while they cooked, ate, and made crafts. As Bwesigye bwa Mwesigire writes in the Guardian, “More than half of the Norwegian population at the time paid to visit the exhibition and gawp … The king of Norway officiated at the opening of the exhibition.” The artists say that despite extensive research, they’ve been unable to find a much information about the Kongolandsbyen. Cuzner has posted a brief clip of archival footage online:

For their contemporary update — which, since its announcement in the press, has been subject to heavy criticism and debate, not least because it’s government-funded — Fadlabi and Cuzner have altered things slightly but significantly: participants are not limited to one race or nationality. “We chose volunteers based on the texts they submit as their application to participate,” Fadlabi told Hyperallergic; the volunteer form is posted online and includes an invitation — “We welcome anybody from anywhere in the world who believes in the importance of the discussion about colonialism, the evolution of racism, equality” — as well as caveats like “You will most likely be asked to defend your participation.” The piece is titled “European Attraction Limited” after the name of the English company that was contracted to build the 1914 Congo village, according to NOUSE.

On one hand, it’s a relief that the artists have omitted the horrific racism of the original exhibit — it’s hard to imagine how a restaging of those stereotypes could advance a productive conversation of any kind. On the other, it’s hard not to wonder if the change renders the whole project too vague to achieve the intended effect. What will the takeaway be — that putting humans in zoos is bad?

Fadlabi and Cuzner have theoretically situated “European Attraction Limited” in the realm of historical reenactment. When asked over email why they felt that was the best approach to the subject, Fadlabi replied:

There are of course many ways to approach any given idea, but this piece is about tracing historical implications on contemporary realities. Alternative approaches are problematic for their own reasons, archival imagery for instance allow the viewer to distance themselves from that history, and this, to feel that a history one did not live in has nothing to do with ones life today is precisely one of the mechanisms that allow contemporary complacency – and the extension of that is – what we do today does not influence a future we will not live in. Furthermore, it is entirely essential to understand that the currently accepted narrative of a ethically and intellectually superior Scandinavia is directly tied to the scientific ethnic superiority of the recent past; they both describe a people winning the race of evolutionary development. To understand the correlation between these two seemingly opposing positions it seems completely relevant to actually see the past and the present in the same time.

But it remains to be seen how the artists will achieve this. When I asked them specifically about the races, nationalities, and/or ethnicities of the zoo volunteers, Fadlabi turned the query on me: “The question itself poses another question – is it different for you if all the volunteers are black? Is it different for you if 2 out of 80 are white?” My response was that if we’re attempting to talk about racial dynamics and prejudices, then yes, these things do matter. I do not wish for Fadlabi and Cuzner to recruit 80 Norwegian residents of African descent and build a zoo for them in the name of art and a wished-for national conversation; but I am uncertain, and curious, about how “European Attraction Limited” will inspire thoughtful conversation of any kind.

Kongolandsbyen 2014 – European Attraction Limited” opens in Oslo’s Frognerparken tomorrow evening.

The Latest

Jillian Steinhauer

Jillian Steinhauer is a former senior editor of Hyperallergic. She writes largely about the intersection of art...

2 replies on “Two Artists Are Building a Human Zoo in Norway”

  1. Dear correspondant.

    The following quote from the artists reasoning why they are doing the project
    has critical importance for many levels of social consciousness, not just

    “…to feel that a history one did not live in has nothing to do with ones
    life today is precisely one of the mechanisms that allow contemporary
    complacency – and the extension of that is – what we do today does not
    influence a future we will not live in. ”

    Aside from directly racist implications towards ‘the other’ it reveals a self
    delusional separation of ones self from all others via the mental state of
    superiority, that in effect excludes ones own race and family
    from consideration. Witness the complacency of generations who enjoy the
    ‘benefits’ of climate change but don’t have to actually deal with the
    consequences and don’t care even though it’ll be their own children and grandchildren who suffer.

    Racism is not a phenomenon isolated from all other ‘others’ that are belittled,
    ignored, zoologically categorised or ‘otherwise’ treated with contemporaneous
    contempt and disinheritance. Racism is just one symptom of the delusion of superiority,
    which is ultimately self-inflicted before the ‘other’ suffers its affects.

    The ‘other’ includes the entirety of the human race that is not ones own self and by extension all other life forms as well.
    The proof is in both the illogicality of racism which denies that human
    being are essentially the same and linked by survival, which is not
    dissimilar to the illogically of climate change ignorers who deny that the natural
    world is also intrinsically linked to our own survival.

    At base both sufferers (the racially subsumed and the naturally subsumed) are
    afflicted by those who believe themselves superior to and separate from that
    which they subsume. It’s almost irrelevant in terms of correcting the delusion,
    that the sufferer is a human defined by race or an animal/plant/mineral defined
    by the same hierarchical nomenclature. The problem resides with the self-deluded, not
    their attendant victims.

    We must accept another human being as
    intrinsically the same as ourselves and intrinsically linked to our own
    survival before the delusion of racism can be negated. In a very similar way we
    must accept the natural world, in terms of carbon based life forms, as
    intrinsically the same as human beings and intrinsically linked to our own
    survival before the delusion of our superiority to ‘it’ and ‘them’ can be negated.

    This reveals as a complete failure the culture of the individual, that is a
    foundation principal of, for instance, monotheistic religions. Ironically the
    ‘individual’ in terms of any culture that maintains hierarchical superiority
    denotes the smallest divisible unit of existence when in fact, as is revealed
    by both the affects of climate change and the illogicality of racism the notion
    of an ‘individual’ existence and by extension the notion of hierarchical otherness
    is impossible.

    For civilisation to survive the arrival of climate change we need to understand just how we fail to acknowledge the natural worlds relatedness to ‘us’. Exactly the same challenge is involved in understanding our relatedness to ‘other’ human beings with different skin colours.

    Please don’t stop there Fadlabi and Cuzner,
    and best wishes.

    1. The connection between progress from past practices and the future outcome of our current actions is what I find most interesting and important about this project. It is a very common view that life is not getting better as we take for granted that many sick oppressive acts have been eliminated if not greatly reduced. It is also a common sentiment, though often not directly voiced, that there is nothing we can do towards our future. I interpret that the artists are saying (among other things) that to be aware of progress is to be empowered to progress. This I find very beautiful and a message lost on today’s most entitled (spoiled) cultures of rich countries. “Yes we can change” because yes we have changed. (not because a politician said so) Since so much of the largest acts of oppression come and have come from government and corporate initiatives, I see no problem with art taking government money to resurface a past atrocity and make it play out in real time.
      The discrepancies between the race of the participants will only make it more interesting because then viewers will have to use there imagination in a very uncomfortable way. And uncomfortable is exactly what this should be.

Comments are closed.