The Louisiana Purchase Exposition, better known as the 1904 Saint Louis World’s Fair, is a historical topic that many historians have utilized to draw conclusions regarding American society. This Exposition was a conglomeration of numerous aspects of American technological and academic accomplishment, as well as foreign accomplishment, showcased to the public on one of the largest stages at the time. Through analysis of the historiography encompassing the 1904 World’s Fair and world’s fairs in general, one can achieve an understanding of how this large topic has been digested by historians over time. It is clear that from the publishing of Robert Rydell in the 1980’s to James Swenson’s 2019 text, the study of world’s fairs has evolved into a unique dichotomy that poses archival, or academic, history against the experiences and memories of those in attendance.
The first phase of the study of the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition arose in the Twentieth century, sparked by Rydell’s seminal text entitled All the World’s a Fair [1], which was published in 1984. At this time, many historians focused their texts on the heavy tones of Imperialism and racism that were rife in American exposition culture throughout all of the American fairs. Nonetheless, Rydell has long been the reigning authority on topics concerning world’s fairs. All the World’s a Fair is commonly referenced by various historians when analyzing the topic of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition. His study analyzes the contributions of each American fair to the overall process of American leaders to frame their notion of “progress as racial dominance and economic growth” [2]. Though his conversation spreads across all the American fairs, he does focus on the Saint Louis Exposition for an entire chapter, arguing that the fair organizers used the Louisiana Purchase Exposition to give “utopian aspects to American imperialism” [3]. Rydell mentions a few aspects of the fair to prove this point, focusing heavily on the Anthropological exhibits, which essentially force-fed the public W.J. McGee’s theory of racial hierarchy. He also touches on this discussion in his later work, Fair America [4], written alongside John Findling and Kimberly Pell in 2000, in which an analysis of the fair’s organization, substance, and legacies, according to this group of historians, leads one to believe that the Louisiana Purchase Exposition was little more than a soapbox for cries of racial hierarchy – evidenced by Anthropology director McGee’s “well-defined theory of racial hierarchy based on what he claimed were differences in cranial capacity and manual dexterity among the races.”[5]
The chronological evolution of the study is disrupted by the work of Nancy Parezo and Don Fowler, entitled Anthropology Goes to the Fair: The 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition [6] and published in 2007. Parezo and Fowler’s work, following the model of Rydell, furthers this discussion of the impact and context that surrounds the importance of the Anthropological exhibits in the Saint Louis Exposition [7]. One aspect of their analysis that diverges from Rydell’s model is that the authors inject the experiences of the inhabitants of the Anthropological exhibits, incorporating their actions and views throughout the discussion – evidenced through analysis of journals and organizer publications. Nonetheless, these historians argue throughout their text that those exhibits served heavily as entertainment and observational proof of both racial hierarchy and American dominance. Rydell expands on this notion, explaining that “The exhibits in the Anthropology Department and on the Philippine Reservation provided fairgoers with an anthropologically calibrated yardstick for measuring the world’s progress.”[8] Furthermore, he mentions that the Filipino Reservation “affirmed the value of the islands to America’s commercial growth and created a scientifically validated impression of Filipinos as racially inferior and incapable of national self-determination in the near future.” [9] However, Rydell, Parezo, Findling, and Pell fail to address the notion of experience or memory of the fair, and instead assume that those in attendance not only saw the message of the planners, but soaked it in.
Rydell’s model of analysis prevails throughout his text Fair America, which greatly concerns itself with the growing viewpoint of seeing expositions as a wealth of information pertaining to their contributions to the “cultural milieu of societies that have hosted them.” [10] The historians of this ilk determine that American expositions throughout the ages have displayed and influenced many political and social aspects of their respective eras. Being pillars of American society, these expositions unified the population on issues concerning the rebuilding of society in a post-Civil War landscape, expansion during the Imperial Age of the Twentieth Century, high economic hopes in the Great Depression, and societal togetherness during the Nuclear Age. This text argues that in the Imperial Era, 1898 to 1916, “demonstration that Anglo-Saxon racial superiority” [11] was at the heart of the development of fairs during this time. This is seen especially in the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition held in Saint Louis, where the recent memory of the Spanish-American War led fair organizers to hold an Anthropology exhibit largely focused on said demonstration – Parezo and Fowler also echo this sentiment, though dedicate the bulk of their analysis to the academic aspects of the Anthropological studies being conducted at the Exposition [12]. The authors base this claim heavily on the explicit purposes outlined by those in charge of organizing the fair, once again paying little attention to the experiences and perceptions of those who attended.
The historians of the Twentieth century base the majority of their other claims on the explicit purposes outlined by those in charge of organizing the fair, paying little attention to the experiences and perceptions of those who attended. While the fair’s organizers certainly had their agenda, the authors leave more to be desired regarding the impact of their agenda on the attendees. As the study of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition has evolved over time, much more attention towards the experience of the attendees is given by historians of the Twenty-First century, such as James Gilbert, James Swenson, Patrick Young, and Danika Medak-Saltzman. Young appears to have started this movement in his 2008 article From the Eiffel Tower to the Javanese Dancer: Envisioning Cultural Globalization at the 1889 Paris Exhibition. [13] While not directly concerned with the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition, Young brings to the table a deep analysis of how the 1889 Paris Exhibition both foreshadowed and sparked a global movement of cultural globalization and media. This is based heavily in the notion of official Exhibition publications and statements of purpose “impede[ing] consideration of the actual reception of the exhibits by visitors.” [14] Young’s work gives strong context surrounding the potential societal impacts of World’s Fair culture, enriching the overall study of the topic. The text Whose Fair? Experience, Memory, and the History of the Great Saint Louis Exposition, [15] written by James Gilbert in 2009, builds heavily off the notion introduced by Young, concerning itself with the differing narratives provided by the academic or archival history and the experiences of attendees. In doing this, he examines the Exposition by inquiring “into how we come to know about and understand such great public events and what we should make of them.” [16] This is contrary to some of the other pieces of literature concerning the World’s Fair, such as Rydell’s work, whose “interpretation places matters of race and imperialism at the center of the intention of the Fair builders and sponsors, and … argues that this is the predominant meaning of the Fair.” [17]
Gilbert combats Rydell and previous historians, stating that “we do not see them [the Fair-goers] as a mute block of observers, ready and willing to accept and absorb the various messages and lessons intended by the designers of the Fair.” [18] This argument is steadily maintained throughout the text and forms the basis of all arguments presented – while the planners of the Fair certainly had deliberate intentions of amassing a representation of the finest aspects of Western Society, alongside an Anglo-Saxon dominated racial hierarchy, many of those in attendance did not catch on to this message. Furthermore, when one considers the many historical contexts surrounding this topic, the Fair was not nearly as original, popular, or innovative as the common narrative suggests. This is backed up by an in-depth analysis of attendance records, investigating the purpose of the Exposition given by the planners, and a similarly in-depth analysis of the reception of popular exhibits in the Anthropology section. Though Gilbert does reference Parezo and Fowler for their investigation on the exhibits, he digs deeper than pure surface-level analysis.
James Swenson, in the 2019 article entitled Bound for the Fair: Chief Joseph, Quanah Parker, and Geronimo and the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair [19], chimes into this discussion by exploring the representation of Native Americans in the Anthropology section through Geronimo’s participation in the fair. He argues that due to the complicated power dynamic between White Americans and Native Americans stemming from the countless wars, skirmishes, and land grabs of the frontier days, the inclusion of war chief Geronimo was highly complicated, evoking feelings of exploitation, fear, and pity.
Swenson heavily discusses the dichotomy between what the fair organizers intended and how it played out – evidenced by newspaper articles and official documents, the planners saw Geronimo and other war chiefs as “living reminders of American might and determinism, and, subdued and seemingly harmless, they signified a passing fear.” [20] He references Parezo and Fowler, as well as Rydell, closely throughout the text, though uses Gilbert’s analytical model. The author claims that, in reality, Geronimo understood his worth to the Exposition, and thus took advantage of the opportunity to undertake “a certain amount of control in the complex power dynamic of the fair” [21] by charging for photographs, shirt buttons, and souvenir bows and arrows.
Building off Swenson, Medak-Saltzman continues the analysis of representation of indigenous peoples in the Exposition in her 2010 text entitled Transnational Indigenous Exchange: Rethinking Global Interactions of Indigenous Peoples at the 1904 St. Louis Exposition [22]. She argues that many visitors had no understanding of the deeper indigenous experience at the Fair, and that the several instances of transnational indigenous exchange could have sown the seeds of the future pro-indigenous movements. This calls upon Young’s text, for both authors thoroughly explore the possibility of exposition impacts foreshadowing future events or societal changes. Heavily evidenced by the published diary of the man in charge of the Ainu exhibit, Frederick Starr, Medak-Saltzman utilizes a well-known picture depicting an Ainu woman and Patagonian woman to analyze the experiences of both groups at the St. Louis Exposition, though heavily focusing on the Ainu. She reveals that “Attempting to view the image presented here through the lenses more commonly used in world’s fair studies –those focused on the original intent of the fair organizers, expressions of empire, and the display pseudo-scientific racial hierarchies –might cause us to see this photograph and the circumstances of its production from a vantage point that claims the experiences of Indigenous peoples are irrecoverable.” [23] Thus, following the Gilbert model of analysis, Medak-Saltzman proves a richer, more nuanced experience of the Ainu and Patagonian inhabitants of the Anthropological exhibits in the St. Louis World’s Fair. Swenson and Medak-Saltzman, alongside Gilbert, dedicate large significance to the representation and perception of the various indigenous groups at the exposition – their deep analyses give great context into not only how those in attendance experienced their exhibits, but the strange and complex power dynamics characterized by their involvement.
Through analysis of these historical works, one can identify both a chronological evolution as well as two different analytical models that comprise the academic history of the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair. Historians of the Twentieth century, led by Robert Rydell, utilized a model of analysis that heavily relied on the official statements of fair organizers – this clearly has brought attention to the imperialistic and racial undertones of the Fair. In recent times, historians such as James Gilbert have turned their attention to the deeper-level aspects that were occurring in 1904 Saint Louis, focusing more on the experience and memory of the fair, nuanced with context pertaining to the period and groups of people involved. The study of the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition has certainly brought a wealth of information to the topic throughout the years. This information not only expands societal understanding of America during a crucial time but enables further analytical synthesis that can reveal yet more knowledge about the past.
Bibliography
Medak-Saltzman, Danika. “Transnational Indigenous Exchange: Rethinking Global Interactions of Indigenous Peoples at the 1904 St. Louis Exposition.” American Quarterly 62, no. 3 (2010): 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2010.0010
Parezo, Nancy, and Don Fowler. Anthropology Goes to the Fair: the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition. University of Nebraska Press, 2007.
Rydell, Robert W. All the World’s a Fair: America’s International Expositions, 1876-1916. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Rydell, Robert W., John E. Findling, and Kimberly D. Pelle. Fair America: World’s Fairs in the United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000.
Swensen, James. “Bound for the Fair: Chief Joseph, Quanah Parker, and Geronimo and the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair.” American Indian Quarterly 43, no. 4 (2019): 439–70. https://doi.org/10.5250/amerindiquar.43.4.0439
Young, Patrick. “From the Eiffel Tower to the Javanese Dancer: Envisioning Cultural Globalization at the 1889 Paris Exhibition.” The History Teacher 41, no. 3 (2008): 339–62. https://doi.org/http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036916
[1] Rydell, Robert W. All the World’s a Fair: America’s International Expositions, 1876-1916. (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1984.)
[2] Rydell. All the World’s a Fair: America’s International Expositions, 1876-1916. P. 8.
[3] Rydell. All the World’s a Fair: America’s International Expositions, 1876-1916. P. 183.
[4] Rydell, Robert W., John E. Findling, and Kimberly D. Pelle. Fair America: World’s Fairs in the United States. (Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000.)
[5] Rydell, Findling, and Pell. Fair America: World’s Fairs in the United States. P.54.
[6] Parezo, Nancy, and Don Fowler. Anthropology Goes to the Fair: the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition. (University of Nebraska Press, 2007.)
[7] Parezo and Fowler. Anthropology Goes to the Fair: the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition.
[8] Rydell. All the World’s a Fair: America’s International Expositions, 1876-1916. P. 178.
[9] Rydell. All the World’s a Fair: America’s International Expositions, 1876-1916. P. 170.
[10] Rydell, Findling, and Pell. Fair America: World’s Fairs in the United States. P.1.
[11] Rydell, Findling, and Pell. Fair America: World’s Fairs in the United States. P.44.
[12] Parezo and Fowler. Anthropology Goes to the Fair: the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition.
[13] Young, Patrick. “From the Eiffel Tower to the Javanese Dancer: Envisioning Cultural Globalization at the 1889 Paris Exhibition.” The History Teacher 41, no. 3 (2008): 339–62.
[14] Young. “From the Eiffel Tower to the Javanese Dancer”, P. 341.
[15] Gilbert, James. Whose Fair?: Experience, Memory, and the History of the Great St. Louis Exposition. (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2009.)
[16] Gilbert. Whose Fair?: Experience, Memory, and the History of the Great St. Louis Exposition. P.4.
[17] Gilbert. Whose Fair?: Experience, Memory, and the History of the Great St. Louis Exposition. P.4.
[18] Gilbert. Whose Fair?: Experience, Memory, and the History of the Great St. Louis Exposition. P.16.
[19] Swensen, James. “Bound for the Fair: Chief Joseph, Quanah Parker, and Geronimo and the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair.” American Indian Quarterly 43, no. 4 (2019): 439–70.
[20] Swensen. “Bound for the Fair”, P.444.
[21] Swensen. “Bound for the Fair”, P.461.
[22] Medak-Saltzman, Danika. “Transnational Indigenous Exchange: Rethinking Global Interactions of Indigenous Peoples at the 1904 St. Louis Exposition.” American Quarterly 62, no. 3 (2010): 591–615.
[23] Medak-Saltzman. “Transnational Indigenous Exchange”, P. 593.
Dalton G. King 