I know little about Ota Benga or in fact any people exhibited who were from the entire continent of Africa barring those from South Sudan ('Nubians'). I know a fair amount of human zoos in Europe, however. They were often not permanent with there being colonial or world exhibitions where people were exhibited, and then the participants would return home, many of them now able to pay off a debt for example. Due to poverty and in countries like Canada, the appalling racism, this was one of the few ways they could make money, making it especially exploitative. Their heydays were from the 1870s-1910 or so, across Western and Northern Europe, showing people from everywhere from Kazakhstan to Nigeria to Greenland living in yurts, a stereotypical 'African village' etc.

Abraham Ulrikab, who was Native Canadian, described being exhibited as being well paid but also tiresome. So it wasn't exactly modern slavery. He was exhibited around Eueope. One of the least profitable exhibits at Copenhagen Zoo was the Indian exhibition. It earned a lot of money but also used a lot of money, on the upkeep and construction of the village but also for the wages of the people being exhibited. Being exhibited wasn't a life sentence and you were paid. It was demeaning and exploitative of course, with physical contact sometimes encouraged.

Abraham Ulrikab travelled to Europe voluntarily. He was from a poor community with little job prospects. There was one store in his village but they could rarely buy things. He was told he would have easy days, money for the things he wanted to buy, access to the things he wanted to buy. He wouldn't be doing difficult, manual work and he would be given gifts and have a home provided for him. Many people like him saw being exhibited as a way out of poverty. People chose to travel willingly from Greenland and Canada. The colonial authorities in both the countries were not keen on this, and the Greenlandic authorities had the ability to stop them leaving, something Hagenbeck(who was the person for human zoos)'s assistant bitterly complained about this, Jacobsen (the assistant) said that the government 'tyrannises the Eskimos'. Whether he believed that human zoos were genuinely positive experiences for those living in them or not, he certainty believed that this argument held away for the general public . Missionaries living in the communities were also against the people in the communities working in human zoos, but this was due to the people in the communities often being baptised Christians. What they would feel about unbaptised Christians, I do not know. Two children, sent by their single, impoverished West Indian mother, in 1905, grew up in Copenhagen, born in St Croix. They had accommodation about ten minutes away from the zoo where they were 'exhibited' during the day in Tivoli, for an exhibition. Once the exhibition ended, they remained, and the money earned by them at the exhibition was put towards their education, They were both educated with the boy, Victor Cornelis, eventually becoming a teacher in Denmark. The little girl, Alberta, sadly died of tuberculosis as a child. I will find a photo of the both of them, just need to search for it...

Those being exhibited did have rights and contracts, not necessarily followed. They were not kept solely confined in the exhibit and it was in most cases not a permanent exhibit. However, they could be taken advantage of or abused even more. Victor and Alberta was kept in a 'cage' because Victor spat at people wanting to take photos of him (and the father of a girl who he spat at beat him for it, although this was met with disapproval and the authorities didn't punish hun for that) and enjoyed exploring the zoo (eg going to the Indian village or the Greenlandic exhibit to play with the stuffed dogs!) so they put him and his sister in a cage. Apparently his sister was given 'treats' (I say this as I look at the hamster cage and frankly it makes me shudder) because she was 'docile' but understandably Victor did not take well to being caged. The contracts between adults were followed, though, and were legally binding. For example, one Chinese woman, Hjin-Sih, who had bound feet, had it stipulated in her contract that she didn't have to show her feet to anyone. Many Danish doctors were interested in how foot binding worked and many visitors wanted to see the 'freakish' feet as it was a symbol of how exotic and primitive she appeared to them. As it was in the contract, despite pleas, she didn't. This was not because they respected her as a human being, they certainly had less respect for most people being exhibited, but Chinese people were seen as having culture, whereas many other ethnicities were seen as not having any. Although Chinese culture was considered below white European culture, it still existed and there was more respect. So Hjin-Sih would not have been described as a primitive or savage, but more uncivilised, which can carry similar connotations but aren't exactly the same either.

The people exhibited could leave the zoo at night, some of the Kyrgyz even requested (and were granted) a meeting with an Empress. Some Sámi who were people in an exhibition spent Christmas (willingly) at the director of Copenhagen Zoo's house. They would be invited to dinner with people and could go as they chose (provided it didn't interfere with work).

How did the audience and the people who set up the exhibits think about it? Mostly, people saw it as a worthwhile, educational thing to do, both for the people being exhibited and the audience. Apart from bringing in a shed load of money, they would also be able to 'civilise' the 'primitive' people being exhibited and they would be able to educate the white Danes about the world around them, about their own culture and civilisation. Human zoos were considered useful and educational- schools would even take trips to them (and many 'human zoos' gave free tickets to schools specifically for the exhibits of people). They were hugely and sickeningly entertaining and popular, so I'm sure they could also justify it by saying they were doing what the public wanted. Despite looking at the people being exhibited as 'primitive', they were 'willing' participants (I say willing, but that is completely ignoring the complex reasons for why people allowed themselves to work as an exhibition in a human zoo) so would not have felt like slavers- they might even have thought that by bringing them to Denmark (or the US, Germany, UK etc) it would bring a positive, 'civilising' influence on the participants.

The crucial difference between Ota Benga is that he wasn't considered human. Pretty much all African people exhibited were considered members of the human species- primitive, savage and uncivilised members, but members none the less. They were at the bottom of the hierarchy of humanity, but they were in that hierarchy. Ota Benga was not considered human, rather a missing link between apes and humans. He would not be given the respect even those viewed as the most primitive, child like (that is what many viewed the people exhibited as being like- like a child) members. He was therefore not given the freedom or limited rights other people being exhibited had. He probably wasn't given a wage, had no access to things such as alcohol (to cope with the boredom associated with the work, many people did become alcoholic while 'performing', there is a mention of one Greenlandic woman having a miscarriage as a result of drinking multiple bottles of alcohol daily), to leaving the zoo etc. So I can't speak for the experiences of him as he and those of this ethnicity as they weren't the norm.