This is likely to reoccur throughout generations because it is what the mothers experienced at an early age and are just doing the things done to them when they were younger. However, the main reason their children are malnourished is because the women don't know which type of foods to feed children, and this is shown by how they feed young children millet rice day in and day out, which is evidently does not provide young growing children the nutritional requirements they need in order to stay healthy and develop a strong immune system.
Many of them will die in childhood of malnutrition or disease and most of the rest will live out their lives in countries that cannot adequately feed and shelter the people they already have. Why do people in the US so often attribute Third World poverty to overpopulation? More than 90% of the newcomers will be born in the Third World. If this were to occur, the mother should not feel much sorrow for the child, as it never really was her child, but just an evil spirit that could cause harm on herself and the rest of the family. If this happens, the baby can be born dead or deformed. The evil spirits infect a pregnant woman when she is walking out alone at night.
If this happens, then the children are taken out to the bush and left there it is believed that they turn into snakes and slither away. The children who "never grow up" are considered to be evil spirits. For a handicap, the family would then know how to move forward and address the issue at hand. This way, they can understand exactly what happened, rather than be left unknowing.
Does a rational, scientific explanation of how someone died, or why someone is handicapped, provide emotional comfort to enable people to cope with their loss? How does this differ in societies where misfortune is attributed to evil spirits? In our society today, rational explanations for why someone is handicapped provides comfort to people for their loss/ misfortune. Dettwyler describes "the typical anthropologist's disdain for missionaries, who begin with the premise that their religion is better than the one the people already have." Why do you think Dettwyler, or any anthropologist, dislikes missionaries? Is it possible to be respectful of another culture's religious beliefs and still try to convert people to your religion? If you are trying to convert people to your religion, that it means that you either think that your own religion is better or that their religion isn't sufficing, that they can do it better, or perhaps that their religion is lesser.
0 kommentar(er)
