Reading #4 discusses the role of traditional Zambian beliefs and how they have shaped negative perceptions of disability. Zambians have deeply rooted ideas about the causes of disability, such as angry ancestors, evil spirits and witchcraft. The introduction of Christianity has worked to dilute some of these beliefs and has started to change public perception, but it seems that traditional beliefs continue to be more influential in the decision by museum operators to avoid interpreting disability. Religion can be a very volatile subject, so what do you think is the best way to approach interpreting disability when its causes are still so strongly attached to the supernatural?
Reading #5 focuses on the absence of war related disability in museums. We commemorate the dead, but ignore the living who have been maimed and psychologically scarred by war. The author uses the examples of genocide and war during the eras of the Holocaust in the 30s-40s, Vietnam and Cambodia in the 70s and Rwanda in the 90s. Consider the amount of time that has passed since these eras. How soon is 'too soon' for displaying exhibits of war related disability? Is it insensitive to confront survivors with graphic images of war in the very places where it occurred?
No comments:
Post a Comment