From a netfriend:

Whether it was the Chou Dynasty in the 12th century BCE or the biologically-crazed nobles of Europe during the Enlightenment, animals were exotica, symbols of power. The agents of Imperialism, assisted by improved technologies, caged the animals of colonies first in private menageries, then public exhibition spaces called zoos.

Having had the good fortune to be dragged through palaces in several cities in Europe recently, I’ve seen the proud results of this imperialism (or the vestiges thereof).

Often it was the bishops who were the principal perpetrators. One-upping one another with the latest exotic beastie for their little zoo. Even if said beastie only lasted long enough to be recorded in a painting. Strange claims too. One church museum has an armadillo from Australia. Another bishop’s gallery had a sulphur crested cockatoo, which must not have come from Australia because it was painted before this continent was “discovered”.

Then again, I’m sure there are counter arguments that the modern zoo, perhaps even Mr Irwin’s zoological theme parks, have significant conservation value.

~~~

The story of his life, already being written, will conclude that Steve Irwin was a good conservationist, a global ambassador for protecting “dangerous” animals. But can the owner or manager of a zoo ever claim such a title? Zoos: cordoned off spaces, celebrating the subjugation of nature. They demonstrate a cruel pecking order: you are on show, it tells animals, because you are in captivity, because you are not free, and your ancestors were exterminated. You must sing for your supper; you must perform for the public.

When one sees the praise heaped on this man, it is fitting to bear in mind the historical raison d’etre of zoo keeping: displays of power through entertainment, imparting knowledge on people about their status in society. Whether it was the Chou Dynasty in the 12th century BCE or the biologically-crazed nobles of Europe during the Enlightenment, animals were exotica, symbols of power. The agents of Imperialism, assisted by improved technologies, caged the animals of colonies first in private menageries, then public exhibition spaces called zoos. By the late 19th century zoos were no longer elitist. Democratised (Irwin was “egalitarian”, one of “us” and the great leveller), the zoo became a space of civic virtue. The public could see the wonders of the “wild”.

If natural conservation is dependent on the televisual orgy, the gladiatorial contest (Will Steve be eaten? Will the reptile eat Steve’s child?), we must be desperate indeed.

Those in favour of Irwin’s environmentalism cite his purchasing ventures: he bought tracts of land for “conservation”. Perhaps he was more complicated than his fans realise. Irwin, who always realised environmental projects as business ventures, never wavered in his central philosophy: reduce the beings of the animal kingdom to anthropomorphic caricatures: crocodiles and snakes can be handled, cuddled, kissed. Their existence in enclosures implies a loss of sanctuary, not an affirmation of conservation.

[Binoy Kampmark posted by Eureka Street 19 September copyright 2006 EurekaStreet.com.au. Read the full article at http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=1718 <http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=1718> ]