Discussion:
Ebola Travel Ban: "Prejudice, Plain, and Simple"
(too old to reply)
Sid Shniad
2014-10-19 21:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
*http://portside.org/2014-10-18/ebola-travel-ban-prejudice-plain-and-simple
<http://portside.org/2014-10-18/ebola-travel-ban-prejudice-plain-and-simple>*
*San Francisco Chronicle October 17, 2014*
Ebola Travel Ban: "Prejudice, Plain, and Simple"


*The political manipulation of the irrational fear of immigrants spreading
disease is part of an historic pattern in United States. The recent calls
for a blanket prohibition on travel from West Africa is prejudice, plain,
and simple: prejudging an entire group of people, based on the sickness of
a small handful. They echo the kind of bigotry directed at other immigrant
groups arriving in this country since the 1800s.*
*Jonathan Zimmerman*

Last week, I was playing tennis when I overheard a discussion on an
adjacent court about the Ebola crisis. “We should just keep the Africans
out,” one gentleman declared. His doubles partner nodded approvingly. “If
you want to stop a leak, you turn off the water,” he said.

But that’s exactly what earlier generations said about my own relatives,
who arrived amid outbreaks of typhus, polio and tuberculosis in the late
1800s. Your ancestors probably encountered something like that, too, when
they came to these shores. You’re dirty and diseased. Keep out.

But we’re Americans now, so we’re free to visit the same hatred on the next
guy. According to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, whose own parents emigrated
here from India, banning people coming from Ebola-affected countries is “an
obvious step to protect public health in the United States.” In North
Carolina, meanwhile, Senate candidate Thom Tillis said the only solution to
Ebola was to “seal the border and secure it.”

He meant the border with Mexico, where sickly outsiders allegedly enter
America to infect the body politic. Back in July, before the first Ebola
case hit the United States, Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey warned of “illegal
migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola
virus, and tuberculosis” across the border.

Pressed later by a journalist, Gingrey — who is a medical doctor by
training — admitted that he didn’t know of any specific Ebola carriers
coming from Mexico. But he didn’t have to know, either. The easiest way to
stigmatize a group of foreigners is to label them as diseased. And we don’t
let facts get in the way of that.

Start with the Irish, who were accused of spreading cholera through
American cities in the early 1800s. Then came the Chinese, charged with
bringing smallpox, leprosy and bubonic plague to California. Writing in
1862, one doctor warned that Chinese immigrants would “corrode the vitals
of our strength and prosperity.” Indeed, he added, their threat to the
public health was greater than if “the hordes of Genghis Khan should
overflow the land.”

In 1900, after a Chinese man died of plague, health officials in San
Francisco quarantined 25,000 Chinese residents in a 15-block section of the
city. Chinese and Japanese travelers were barred from railroads unless they
had received a newly developed — and largely untested — inoculation against
the disease. At least one local newspaper suggested a simpler solution:
burn down Chinatown. “Clear the foul spot from San Francisco,” the paper
urged, “and give the debris to the flames.”

Then came the Italians, with their “low foreheads” and “weak chins,” as
sociologist E. A. Ross wrote in 1914. Small wonder that they so often got
sick, which threatened others with illness as well. In New York, Ross
noted, Italian immigrants’ death rate was twice that of the general
population.

Actually, as historian Alan Kraut has shown, the Italian mortality rate was
lower than the New York average. Likewise, Jews — who were accused of
spreading tuberculosis — had one of the lowest rates of death from the
disease of any ethnic group. But anti-Semites continued to denounce them as
sickly weaklings — “the polar opposite of our pioneer brand,” E.A. Ross
scowled — who would supposedly weaken everyone else.

More recently, Haitian immigrants were one of the “4 H’s” — alongside
homosexuals, heroin users and hemophiliacs — deemed at risk for AIDS by the
Centers for Disease Control in 1983. As one physician admitted two years
later, when the CDC removed Haitians from the list, they were “the only
risk group that were identified because of who they were rather than what
they did.”

But that’s been the historic pattern. And we’re witnessing it again, in the
calls to keep out migrants from Ebola-affected nations in Africa. Of course
we should screen visitors from these countries for the virus, as the CDC is
already doing at five airports. And we should also work with African
immigrant communities to help them identify people who might have been
infected with Ebola or exposed to it.

But a blanket prohibition on travel from West Africa? That’s prejudice,
plain and simple: It prejudges an entire group, based on the sickness of a
small handful. And it echoes the kind of bigotry that my ancestors must
have experienced when they arrived in the great wave of Jewish immigration
over a century ago.

Each spring, I imagine, they repeated the same lines that I do at Passover:
“The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among
you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land
of Egypt.” So were almost all of us, in the land of America. How quickly we
forget.

*[Jonathan Zimmerman is a professor of history and education at New York
University and author of “Too Hot to Handle: A Global History of Sex
Education,” forthcoming from Princeton University Press. His commentary
appeared in the Open Forum section of the San Francisco Chronicle.]*
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+***@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Loading...