By Nabil Al-Kinani
Human Zoos and the Spectacle of Empire
Human zoos, or ethnographic exhibitions, were a colonial-era practice in which non-European people were displayed in fabricated environments to entertain and educate Western audiences. These exhibitions, which gained prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were rooted in pseudo-scientific racism and imperial ideology, reinforcing the belief that non-Western societies were primitive and required European governance (Corbey 1993; Quijano 2007).
Britain played a major role in these spectacles, using them as propaganda tools to justify imperial rule. The 1924 British Empire Exhibition (BEE) at Wembley was among the largest and most elaborate examples of this tradition, positioning Britain as the architect of global progress while reducing colonised people to objects of display. The Exhibition was an assertion of power, designed to bolster support for the Empire at a time of economic strain and growing anti-colonial sentiment (Geppert 2010).
The 1924 British Empire Exhibition
The British Empire Exhibition was conceived as a monumental showcase of imperial unity, officially aimed at strengthening economic ties across the empire while educating the British public about its overseas possessions. Spanning 216 acres, the Exhibition featured over 100 pavilions, with dominions such as Canada and Australia controlling their own exhibits, while colonised territories such as Nigeria, India, and Malaya were represented through British-curated displays that reinforced colonial control (Stephen 2009).
Though framed as an educational event, the Exhibition was ultimately an imperial propaganda exercise. Its organisers sought to glorify British rule by presenting the colonies as prosperous under British governance while masking the exploitation and violence that sustained imperial dominance (Britton 2010). The event promoted an idealised vision of empire, in which economic growth, industrial advancement, and racial hierarchy were presented as natural and beneficial aspects of colonial rule.
Colonial Display and Control
A defining feature of the Exhibition was its use of fabricated native villages, which portrayed non-European societies as static and unchanging, reinforcing the notion that they needed British intervention to achieve modernity. These exhibits erased colonial violence and economic extraction, instead framing British rule as benevolent and progressive (Geppert 2010).
The Walled City, a reconstruction of the Nigerian city of Kano, was one of the most infamous exhibits. Designed to evoke a romanticised image of “primitive” Africa, it presented a curated version of West African life that was stripped of complexity and historical change (Britton 2010). Visitors could watch artisans at work, but these performances were tightly controlled to align with British-imposed narratives of progress and order.
Similarly, the South African Pavilion included an “ethnographic section” that juxtaposed indigenous artefacts with large-scale photographs of British-built infrastructure, subtly implying that colonial rule had transformed South Africa from a backward society into a modern nation (Braunholtz 1924). These carefully curated presentations reinforced the racial hierarchy at the core of imperial ideology, portraying Britain as the architect of civilisation.
Spectacle, Objectification, and Resistance
The Exhibition reduced colonised subjects to objects of spectacle, reinforcing a racial hierarchy in which non-Europeans were cast as exotic and inferior. The official guide referred to participants as “Races in Residence,” listing them as though they were part of a catalogue of specimens (British Empire Exhibition Guide 1924).
Performers from India, Burma, and Africa were expected to wear traditional dress and enact cultural practices that aligned with British-imposed stereotypes, reinforcing the notion that these societies were frozen in time, untouched by modernity (Geppert 2010). Meanwhile, British newspapers such as The Daily Mirror and Punch published cartoons that mocked and infantilised African and Indian participants, portraying them as bewildered and naive (Haselden 1924).
However, the Exhibition was not met with passive acceptance. West African students in London staged protests against the event’s demeaning portrayal of their homelands, arguing that the exhibits distorted reality and failed to acknowledge the political and economic struggles of the colonies (Britton 2010). Their activism was part of a broader wave of anti-colonial resistance that challenged Britain’s imperial propaganda and demanded a more honest reckoning with the realities of colonial rule.
Halimah Binti Abdullah: A Forgotten Life
One of the most tragic stories of the Exhibition is that of Halimah Binti Abdullah, a 60-year-old weaver from Malaya (British Empire Exhibition Report 1925). Brought to Wembley to demonstrate traditional textile-making as part of the Malayan Pavilion, she lived on-site in inadequate conditions, exposed to the harsh British winter.
The British authorities allocated just £136 for the living quarters of the Malayan contingent, in stark contrast to the £4.5 million spent on the Exhibition itself (Brent Archives 1925). Halimah was housed in a converted ex-army officer’s mess hut, which offered little protection from the cold. Soon after arriving in Britain, she contracted pneumonia and died at Willesden Green Hospital (British Empire Exhibition Report 1925). She was buried in Brookwood Cemetery, far from her homeland, in an unmarked grave.
Halimah’s story is emblematic of the disregard for colonial subjects at the Exhibition. While Britain profited from the spectacle of empire, individuals like her suffered, their lives reduced to fleeting exhibits in a grand imperial narrative.
A Legacy of Racism: Wembley Today
The legacy of the British Empire Exhibition is still visible in Wembley Park, where numerous streets and public spaces bear names that commemorate the event. Names such as Empire Way, Exhibition Way, and Royal Route continue to celebrate Britain’s colonial past, embedding imperial nostalgia into the urban landscape (Al-Kinani 2024).
This continued veneration of the Exhibition is particularly troubling given the demographic makeup of Brent, one of London’s most ethnically diverse boroughs (Office for National Statistics 2021). Today, over 64% of Brent’s population comes from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds, many of whom trace their heritage to formerly colonised nations (Al-Kinani 2024). Despite this, Wembley’s imperialist street names remain largely unchallenged, reinforcing a public memory that privileges empire over the histories of those it oppressed.
These commemorations act as a silent yet persistent endorsement of imperialist ideology, preserving Britain’s colonial legacy without critical examination. Calls to rename these spaces have gained momentum in recent years, reflecting growing demands for Britain to confront its imperial past and acknowledge the full extent of colonial violence.
Conclusion
The 1924 British Empire Exhibition was not merely a celebration of empire—it was a carefully constructed assertion of racial hierarchy and colonial dominance. Through fabricated native villages, human exhibits, and curated displays, the event sought to justify British rule by depicting colonised societies as dependent on imperial guidance. The tragic story of Halimah Binti Abdullah and the continued presence of imperialist commemorations in Wembley Park serve as stark reminders that Britain’s colonial past is far from distant history.
To move forward, Britain must engage in a genuine reckoning with its past—one that not only acknowledges the full extent of colonial violence but actively dismantles the lingering structures of imperial nostalgia that persist in public spaces today.
References & Bibliography
– Al-Kinani, N. (2024). Naming Pains: A Critical Exploration of Imperial Commemorations at Wembley Park.
– Braunholtz, H.J. (1924). “Ethnographical Exhibition in the South African Pavilion, British Empire Exhibition.” Man, 24:129.
– Brent Archives (1925). British Empire Exhibition Report.
– Britton, S. (2010). “Come and See the Empire by the All Red Route!”, History Workshop Journal, 69:68–89.
– Corbey, R. (1993). “Ethnographic Showcases, 1870–1930.” Cultural Anthropology, 8(3):338–369.
– Geppert, A.C.T. (2010). Fleeting Cities. Palgrave Macmillan.
– Quijano, A. (2007). “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality.” Cultural Studies, 21(2–3):168–178.
– Stephen, D.M. (2009). “The White Man’s Grave”: British West Africa and the British Empire Exhibition of 1924–1925, Journal of British Studies, 48(4):1021–1046.
