Talk:Ota Benga

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Outriggr|Outriggr]]

message: 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddsharper (talk • contribs) 09:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: The information regarding his teeth being filed down by his master is totally inaccurate. This was a practice done in Africa, particularly among the Congoese men. It is seen as a act of manhood, not degredation. This is found in a LOT of scholarly texts. I am currently on a museum working on expanded knowledge on Benga. [[User:Floronic|Floronic]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.125.4 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  White washed and incomplete account 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPR story 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I also agree with the above...  I removed "theroy of.." with "Human..." as to make it more specific.  Larger concept of evolution I don't believe was the focus, but only the 'progression' of human evolution. Dinkytown (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph - what the heck? 

message: Would whoever added Raw Deal: Horrible and Ironic Stories of Forgotten Americans mind adding the page numbers? No preview is available on Google Books or I'd add it myself. Thanks. Recognizance (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that reference, but no longer own the book. It was "lent" to a Horrible and Ironic friend. However, Ota Benga has his own chapter, as do all the Horrible and Ironic stories, so the hypothetical Reference Hunter (I've never spotted him yet, presuming that you are asking in an article-maintenance capacity and not in a I-desperately-need-to-confirm-this-reference capacity) will have no trouble locating the information within that chapter, I'm sure. –Outriggr § 06:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only capacity I was asking in was a for-the-sake-of-completeness one. It's not a big issue. :) Recognizance (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith reference 

message: Per Bradford and Blume (don't ask me for page numbers, I don't have the book anymore) Ota Benga was one of the few members of his tribe to survive the attack. There were a couple others who were in slavery, but for all intents and purposes, he was the last of his kind. See here in Adams where it says:
As was the case with his African contemporary, the fragments of Ishi's story provide less satisfying evidence about an individual life than about how racial freaks are made at the seams where institutions, professionals, and their publics inevitably meet. Ishi, like Ota Benga, was "the last of his tribe," a Yahi Indian in his mid-fifties...
So if you want the caption to instead read that he was portrayed as the last member or something similar, that's fine. But Mbuti is an ethnographic designation; his individual tribe consisted of less than 100 people probably. Recognizance (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: In the intro paragraph, the article suggests Ota Benga committed suicide with a shotgun. A later paragraph suggests he ended his life by means of a pistol... Anybody know which is correct? This should be verified and changed.
--Diyforlife (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity? 

message: The western world was in need to prove their eligibility of superior among all life forms in the planet, they think to use uncivilized people as they are using animals.
at that time they were astonished of the civilization in the Muslim, Eastern, and South America land. thus, Darwin was an idiot and human was Created as human and not evolved from something else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.188.225 (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh, read up a little on Charles Darwin (hardly a stupid fellow) and  Social Darwinism (a rationale for exploitation which stole Darwin's name but was not advocated by him). Infrogmation (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Darwin 

message: There is a sentence in the "Bronx Zoo" section of this wiki which says "In response to his general situation and to verbal and physical prods from the crowds, his behavior became at first mischievous and then somewhat violent." This is the first time I'm seeing the behaviour of an adult male to be described as 'mischievous'. It comes across as racist and dehumanizing. So please, replace the word with something that applies to adult humans or if it was a quote from some source, put it in quote and mention the source. Boygamer10 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 12 years later, it still hasn't been changed. Guenhumara (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "mischievous" (of a person, animal, or their behavior) causing or showing a fondness for causing trouble in a playful way - Seems an adult can be mischievous; I know I've been guilty of such a few times in my five decades+ of adulthood. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I recall some mischievous actions while under extreme stressful conditions in Vietnam way back when ... Vsmith (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Mischievous'?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ota Benga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA%2FMGArticle%2FLNA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782991730&path=!news!archive
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I tried to follow up on the New York Times block quote by following the hyperlink. I was disappointed to discover that it links to a secondary source—Spiro's book— and thus is effectively useless without the reader's being able to find a copy of that book and looking up the ref. If the writer had taken the time to include Spiro's own citation (of the date of the Times's editorial, which one has to assume is properly sourced there), I'd be able to follow up directly in the Times's archive.  I find this to be an endemic problem on Wikipedia. (that and dead links I constantly run up against but am not quite able to discover how to 'report" as dead.) I am sorry to be complaining in a relatively unconstructive way, but perhaps someday someone will see this and rectify it by supplying the ref! The larger question remains on why it is acceptable to cite only secondary sources? Actio (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  the uses of references, a particular and general question 

message: This wiki article relies heavily on a book by Phillips Verner Bradford (grandson of Samuel Bradford) and Harvey Blume. This may explain why the article suggests that Ota Benga accompanied Bradford voluntarily to the US and persuaded other young Pygmy men or boys to do the same. The article also implies that a collegial relationship developed over time between Benga and Bradford, and that Benga was amiable and adaptable in many of the settings where he found himself. However, these portrayals have been credibly criticized as whitewashing after the fact. We don't know if Benga was kidnapped, but Verner's white supremacist sympathies and constantly shifting claims about how he found Benga mean that we certainly can't rule it out. Verner also found ways to downplay the Bronx Zoo exhibition when it was underway, and the claim that Benga was a zoo caretaker surfaced after the controversy erupted about he exhibit in 1906. Other contemporary accounts describe him resisting captivity with growing vehemence - as another user keenly pointed out, the word "mischievous" disparages what he was actually going through as an imprisoned man. So the jury is out on any claim that he joined Verner freely, enjoyed playing the part Americans expected in return for money or other benefits, chose to return to the US with Verner after an initial return to the Congo, or started as a zoo caretaker. Any unanswered question can't be known without independent research into archives to corroborate or discredit Bradford and Blume's unreliable account. See coverage from the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53917733) and the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/03/the-man-who-was-caged-in-a-zoo). Guenhumara (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bradford and Blume book is unreliable 

message: I remember there being a section that talked about the motivation about this, including scientific racism and eugenics coming into play as fuel for the fire. what happened to that? Nomad_00 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  absolutely no information about the concepts of scientific racism or eugenics 

message: In 1992 the writers Bradford and Blume imagined his feelings:
How is speculation about how a man might have felt a 100 years ago, acceptable in what's supposed to be a factual article? This is absurd. 141.30.226.230 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective speculation