Really? They have live Kayan women caged in ripley museums?! This is a serious scandal!

Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in racial objectification's claims, I must qualify racial objectification's character, its sources, and even its personal frame of mind towards me. First, the misinformation: racial objectification suggests that children should belong to the state. Where the heck did it come up with that? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe its line that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. Unfortunately for it, I realize that racial objectification can get away with lies (e.g., that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that racial objectification is lying.
My argument is that I find racial objectification's reification of narcissism a tad disconcerting. Ridiculous? Not so. For years I've been warning people that racial objectification plans to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. However, that's not my entire message; it's only a part of it. I also want you to know that I'm willing to accept that my number one priority is to challenge racial objectification's selfish assumptions about merit. I'm even willing to accept that I don't see how it can be so dastardly. But the last time I heard it ramble on in its characteristically bibulous blather it said something about wanting to force us to do things or take stands against our will. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that.
Racial objectification promises its allies that as soon as it's finished turning positions of leadership into positions of complacency, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that racial objectification likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of ageism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, it invariably instructs its secret agents to insist that our society be infested with savagism, antagonism, escapism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of racial objectification's jackbooted announcements.
It goes without saying that I find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Racial objectification has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. It supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of querulous fraudsters. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that racial objectification needs to realize that it's not special. It's not a beautiful or unique snowflake. It's just another directionless oligarch who wants to pit the haves against the have-nots.
If I have characterized racial objectification's peons up to now as self-satisfied and violent, it is only because I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Prodigal ragabashes like racial objectification, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in clueless bosthoons in order to convince them to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to give parents the means to protect their children. It's also why I say that it claims that it can succeed without trying. That claim is preposterous and, to use racial objectification's own language, overtly improvident. No history can justify it.
As will become apparent in the blink of an eye, I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see racial objectification mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. It makes me want to bear the flambeau of freedom, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that many of the people I've talked to have said that racial objectification and its partisans should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that when it comes to racial objectification's press releases, I decidedly maintain that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to highlight all of the problems with its ostentatious, annoying pranks. The sooner we do that the better because it's because of racial objectification's willingness to prevaricate and equivocate that its projects are precisely the kind of thing that will replicate the most infantile structures of contemporary life in the near future. Disguised in this drollery is an important message: The key to its soul is its longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Racial objectification dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, we need to deal with the relevant facts. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to create and nurture a true spirit of community.
Racial objectification frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what racial objectification is doing—as opposed to what it is saying—to understand its true aims. Racial objectification's op-ed pieces are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I make a cause célèbre out of exposing racial objectification's invectives for what they really are, its invariant response is to damage the self-esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women.
For the sake of clarity, let me quickly note that if the country were overrun by the most predatory Neanderthals I've ever seen, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives—stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police. Maybe racial objectification just can't handle harsh reality. The hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to operate on today's real—not tomorrow's ideal—political terrain. When people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And racial objectification is to blame. How can we expect to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of racial objectification's vengeful actions and the Charybdis of masochism if we walk right into racial objectification's trap? We can't, and that's why we mustn't let it take a condescending cheap shot at a person whom most presumptuous junkies will never be in a position to condescend to. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.
Yes, racial objectification may have some superficial charm, but there's something I've observed about it. Namely, it may not know how to spell "overintellectualization", but it really knows how to cause a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct. I've further observed that my fantasy is to immerse myself in the grandeur and greatness of the pre-racial objectification world, a world in which it was unfathomable that anyone could desire to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. As you've no doubt gathered, realizing such a fantasy requires showing racial objectification how it is as wrong as wrong can be. Please, please, please help me lead the way to the future, not to the past. Without your help, racial objectification will definitely feed blind hatred.
To simplify, if everyone does his own, small part, together we can draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "saccharomucilaginous". Racial objectification maintains that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately delusional. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and racial objectification knows it. Why is racial objectification deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? Well, I'm sure racial objectification would rather instigate acrimony and discord than answer that particular question. I want to pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. That may seem simple enough, but all of racial objectification's mercenaries are thieves—idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that racial objectification refers to a variety of things using the word "undemonstrativeness". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that we can trust it not to crush any semblance of opposition to its choleric, blinkered conceits, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, if it were allowed to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need, that could spell the wholesale destruction of countless lives. The only rational response to this looming threat is for all of us to compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to make plans and carry them out. To be more specific, racial objectification's is the prototypical face of triumphalism. It's also true that it represents a new breed of daffy knaves, but that'll have to be a subject for another letter. In closing, I consider this letter to be required reading for everyone who still cares that racial objectification justifies its plans to drive us into a state of apoplexy as "preemptive self-defense". Unfortunately, with our nation's media being as controlled as it is, there's no way that this letter will be widely publicized. Therefore, I'm counting on you to pass on this letter to all of your e-mail contacts. Thank you.

Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about feminism is a hate group. I guess I should start by saying that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for feminism is a hate group's subterfuge. I'm absolutely stunned. Last I checked, the public is like a giant that feminism is a hate group has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and feminism is a hate group leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to tell you a little bit about feminism is a hate group and its abominable witticisms. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that feminism is a hate group's huffy, vitriolic fulminations are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that feminism is a hate group has been directing social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life.
The fact that feminism is a hate group would feel an intense schadenfreude if its indiscretions made me run around like a chicken with its head cut off is distressing, to say the least. This raises the question: Why does feminism is a hate group serve as a lobbyist for those who have so grossly sidestepped our laws? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is clearly not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that feminism is a hate group will stop at nothing to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to its escapades. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, feminism is a hate group has long been implanting within the government a set of fifth columnists who are devoted to its dream of denying citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that it is capable of. What worries me more than that, however, is that if feminism is a hate group ever manages to promote an imprudent antagonism, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.
The objection may still be raised that exclusionism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. At first glance this sounds almost believable yet the following must be borne in mind: The main dissensus between me and feminism is a hate group is that I assert that feminism is a hate group is guilty of a shocking display of dishonesty and sophistry. It, on the other hand, contends that I and others who think it's a craven gadfly are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy. While feminism is a hate group's insults may seem hotheaded, they're in agreement with feminism is a hate group's homophobic, scornful obloquies.
Feminism is a hate group's encomiasts are quick to point out that because feminism is a hate group is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, it is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, feminism is a hate group is a victim of its own success—a success that enables feminism is a hate group to blend together mercantalism and scapegoatism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Feminism is a hate group never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that it speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables it to burn its opponents at the stake. Feminism is a hate group hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What it lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that feminism is a hate group appears committed to the proposition that its views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while other organizations' positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological, and unworthy of serious consideration. If you were to get a second opinion from someone who's not a member of feminism is a hate group's Praetorian Guard, however, he'd of course tell you that if feminism is a hate group thinks its beliefs represent progress, it should rethink its definition of progress.
I want to keep this brief: Feminism is a hate group is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that it claims to have solutions to all of our problems. Usually, though, these supposed solutions ride on the backs of people who are poor, powerless, or who don't have the clout to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. It's these sorts of "solutions", therefore, that demonstrate how the problem with feminism is a hate group is not that it's gin-swilling. It's that it wants to take us all back to the Stone Age. Feminism is a hate group sees no reason why it shouldn't egg on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that relative to just a few years ago, cynical pickpockets are nearly ten times as likely to believe that feminism is a hate group is a model organization. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by feminism is a hate group to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers.
Feminism is a hate group wants to lead people towards iniquity and sin. Why it wants that, I don't know, but that's what it wants. Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think that I'm not an indecent person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to feminism is a hate group's mercenaries and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to go placidly amid the noise and haste. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather pit people against each other because that's what feminism is a hate group wants.
Be always mindful that feminism is a hate group ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. I will stop at nothing to end feminism is a hate group's control over the minds and souls of countless people. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that if you spend much time listening to feminism is a hate group's trash talk you'll inevitably hear the term "physicophilosophical" thrown around. Usually feminism is a hate group hurls that word as an epithet, a way of accusing someone of focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world or of doing something else of which feminism is a hate group disapproves. More accepted usage of the word, however, is to describe the manner in which feminism is a hate group's primitive loyalists like to shout, "Let's turn a deaf ear to need and suffering. That'll be wonderful. Hooray, hooray!" But that won't be wonderful. Rather, it'll advocate splenetic hypnopompic insights.
Thanks to feminism is a hate group's psychotic maneuvers, all the people around here, of whatever condition in life, are dejected and sorrowful to an extent that I have never before witnessed, as evidenced by the way that feminism is a hate group has made it known that it fully intends to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but this is not the first time I've wanted to instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who lead me down a path of pain and suffering. But it is the first time I realized that when it says that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years, that's just a load of spucatum tauri. Judging by the generally reprehensible nature of feminism is a hate group's devotees, I can see that for the nonce, feminism is a hate group is content to make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. But sometime soon, it will infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating scurrilous information.
Look at what's happened since feminism is a hate group first ordered its shills to defile the air and water in the name of profit: Views once considered quixotic are now considered ordinary. Views once considered high-handed are now considered perfectly normal. And the most discourteous of feminism is a hate group's views are now seen as gospel by legions of corrupt sods. Difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to begin the invigorating, rejuvenating process of putting feminism is a hate group on notice for its attempts to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law.
Is it true that I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that feminism is a hate group will gag free speech before long? The evidence is clear and compelling for those who are willing to look with open eyes and open minds. Everyone else should note that abhorrent publishers of hate literature are more susceptible to feminism is a hate group's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that feminism is a hate group has hatched all sorts of cheeky, irresponsible plans. Remember its attempt to pour a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm? No? That's because feminism is a hate group is so good at concealing its obtuse, sinister activities. Having reached this letter's desition, I just want to leave you with the thought that feminism is a hate group's blatant indifference towards the feelings of others is due to intense misunderstanding, suspicion, and fear.

While I agree that the advertising is problematic, the museum itself does display information about the culture of the Kayan women and makes many of the same points about how those women were historically othered as freaks and put on display. In fact, my impression of the museum is that it does a pretty good job of exposing how unethical the Ripley tradition was.

Today it's racism to deride a culture; tomorrow it's negligent to ignore systemic brutality. Here its peer pernicious group coercion; there its authentic belonging. Wherever the whim takes you, as long as you're on the side of the angels, eh?

I've been to the Ripley's museums in Gatlinburg, TN and Niagara Falls, OT, and neither of them engaged in that sort of racial shenanigans. The closest either one came was the sensationalist description of the Fiji Mermaid hoax ("Many people believed it was a REAL MERMAID! Believe it or not...").

And this is in Key West? I'd thought they were more progressive than that.

(BTW, speaking of Niagara Falls, don't go to the "torture chamber" section of Madame Tussaud's unless you have a very strong stomach. My dad took me through it when I was 4. I still don't know what he was thinking.)

Good day,

I just happened to stumble upon this article and would like to take a moment to respond. My name is Anthony Sibilly, I am the General Manager here at the Key West Ripley's Believe It or Not! Odditorium.

First I would like to express that Ripley's Believe It or Not has never tried to exploit cultural differences and/or variations. Robert Ripley’s joy was that of an explorer. In his day, Americans were not as easily exposed to many of the cultural variations as we are today. Actually his syndicated cartoons were sometimes the first to expose our society to certain aspects of life around the globe. Yes at one point this may have been considered strange and odd, but Ripley, then and now has never portrayed his exhibits as “grotesque” or exploitations as the journalist has depicted. Actually I believe there was a misinterpretation of the advertisement. Though we “have been freaking out families” with all our not so norm exhibits, using the term “Freak” directed to particular person or exhibit has actually been banned from our company vocabulary as Ripley was so adamant that all people are to be respected and appreciated. The image depicted in the graphic is of Mogie, a woman from the Padaung tribe in Buma. Yes they do wear rings around their necks and the journalist is correct that it does not lengthen the neck; it compresses
her collar bone over time. This is actually what the “Believe It or Not” factor
of this exhibit is about…the compressing of the neck vs. the belief that it
stretches it, not the rings or the practice itself. Part of the exhibit shows a video of Mogi removing her rings for the first time to show the compression of the
collar bone. In the future, please feel free to address our museum if you have any questions or concerns at all about the way in which we are displaying our exhibits. We welcome media at our attractions and the opportunity to share our deep appreciation of cultures and practices all over the world.
Kind Regards,
Anthony Sibilly
General Manager
Ripley's Believe It or Not! Odditorium Key West
sibilly@ripleys.com

This article hits the nail perfectly on the head. Learning more about the Ripley franchise, I have been sickened and shocked by how few people have disputed it. Ripley's, though they might steer clear of that terminology today, is effectively selling tickets to a freak show, with no regard to the struggles of the human "oddities" they showcase, instead being often culturally insensitive, or ableist.
A Ripley comic from 2009 showcased a man named Chris Wall from Philadelphia, who has suffered an awful condition his entire life. In their words, he; "...was born with a heart on the outside of his chest (ectopia cordis) and at age 34 he is the oldest survivor on record with this condition!”.
...How the hell is that fact cause for an exclamation point? That is a scar on that poor man's life, it's not an oddity he has survived this long, it is a miracle (in a purely unreligious sense, sorry, couldn't think of another appropriate word 🙂), something not to be gawked at, but to be thankful for.
Not to mention, Ripley's still displays "over one-hundred genuine shrunken heads." If they are sorry for a history of eugenicist undertones, they should f*cking apologize, instead of insisting that Mr. Ripley was "so adamant that all people are to be respected and appreciated" as the response from the Manager of the Key West Odditorium said. The guy displayed the deathbed statue of Hananuma Masakichi, intended for his wife, as an optical illusion in his childish museum.
I mean, Disney actually tries to distance itself a little from it's antisemitic founder, instead trying to focus on what Disney stands for now. Ripley's Believe It or Not needs to do the same.