Statement 1: “Contact between tourists and the Mursi is a good opportunity for the Mursi to develop and to be part of the globalized world”
The most important aspect about this statement is: Do the Mursi want to develop and be part of the globalized world? As seen in the movie “Framing the other” the Mursi people do not even understand why the tourists are coming and make pictures. They figured out that it is because of their different way of living, but they have no clue what the tourists are doing with the pictures they took. It was hard to see how the tourists wanted to put their culture and values on the Mursi tribe (“Say thank you!” although they do not even speak the same language). As stated by Turton, 2005, the interaction between the tourists and Mursi can more be seen as a confrontation. Two completely different cultures are meeting each other with specific targets (tourists: taking pictures, Mursi: earning money) and try to deal with each other. The visits of tourists have already an influence on the Mursi culture; they decorate their lip plates more than usual. On the traditional lip plates there were no white drawings; those are added because the Mursi people think it makes them more interesting for the tourists and they will take more photos which means more money for the Mursi. Furthermore the movie showed that the Mursi made up some decorations which shall impress the tourists. The tourists then think it is part of the culture and think it is authentic. So to conclude it can be said that I disagree with the statement. It depends on the tribe whether they want to be part of the globalized world or not, this is not the tourists´ decision. Even if they want to develop, tourism is perhaps not the right channel to do this because the tribe may gets a wrong impression.
Statement 2: “For ethical reasons, taking photographs of Mursi people (and other indigenous tribes) should be prohibited”
I definitely agree with...