When a need to get the point across outweighs the safety of a group of people, on a national level…
Since the first reported cases of COVID-19 on December 31, 2019, there have been 1.6 million confirmed cases to this day, around 65,000 in the UK alone, stretching over the continents and dominating the front pages of various media sites. Governments, leaders and world organisations, be they federal or unitary, authoritarian or liberalised, are currently taking their own unique, systematic approaches towards this global contagion. The approach of one figure stands out; the President of the United States.
Donald Trump had posted on his Twitter account that various American industries were “particularly affected by the Chinese Virus.” Such choice of words had been heavily criticised at daily White House press conferences; the naming of this year’s coronavirus outbreak had already been decided by the World Health Organisation on the 11th of February 2020. However, the President has stood by his words since “[COVID-19] comes from China.” Many continue to support his claim. After all, the first cases of the disease had indeed been reported in Wuhan, China. Shouldn’t that be more than enough justification?
Well to put this in perspective, previous viruses have been named after the geographic locations of where their first cases had been discovered. Ebola is a river (located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), properly known as ‘Legbala’ (meaning ‘white water’) in its indigenous language of Ngbandi. ‘West Nile virus’, transmitted commonly from mosquitoes, is named after the world’s longest river, the birthplace of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, and the major commercial heartland for many Northeast African nations.
Well to put this in perspective, previous viruses have been named after the geographic locations of where their first cases had been discovered. Ebola is a river (located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), properly known as ‘Legbala’ (meaning ‘white water’) in its indigenous language of Ngbandi. ‘West Nile virus’, transmitted commonly from mosquitoes, is named after the world’s longest river, the birthplace of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, and the major commercial heartland for many Northeast African nations.
However, there are no ‘Ebolanese people’; there are no ‘West Nilese people’; nor are there ‘Zikanese people’; quite frankly there are no ‘Human immunodeficiency people’. And, though the Spanish flu influenza had not originated from the Iberian Peninsula, we can probably agree that we as humans have grown and developed our attitude since 1918; there are many word choices from just 20 years ago that we no longer use.
There are, on the contrary, ‘Asian people’ and ‘Chinese people’. There are indeed ‘Wuhanese people’ or ‘武汉人’ (Wuhan ren). One may argue that the previous viruses were still somewhat geographic, though they are rather less linked or connected to a certain nationality or race. It can also be argued that some viruses are named after the countries where their first cases had originated from, such as ‘Japanese encephalitis’, quite insensitively referring to the mosquito-carried disease with estimated 68,000 clinical cases every year according to the WHO. The first case was documented in 1871. The effect of racializing diseases should not be ignored due to the ramifications against its people of origin. We as people have learned so much about what’s right and wrong.
The intention of the WHO to avoid referring to this strain of coronavirus as ‘the China Virus’, ‘Wuhan virus’, or even ‘WuFlu’ would be accredited to a publication from the organisation in May 2015: the ‘World Health Organization Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases’.
The document itself contains guidelines upon the procedure of classifying a virus – the best practices for disease naming, and names to avoid. This is to circumvent the inappropriate naming of a virus which will undoubtedly be established in popular media and society due to increasingly rapid communication and the availability of ideas through electronic means.
It is important to understand the ramifications of naming diseases before the WHO’s regulations. Many people would probably remember the H1N1 virus that stemmed out of North America and such had been popularly referred to as “Swine flu”. Over a dozen panicking major exporting nations had banned the import of pork, causing a sharp decline in the global pork industry. By mid-August, this had been the second-worst commodity investment of 2009. In April of the same year, the Egyptian government had gone as far as to slaughter all 300,000 pigs in the country, despite lacking evidence of the pigs being suspected of having the virus. While 2009 H1N1 had likely originated in pigs, it was almost exclusively a human to human pandemic crisis and has since been well established as a seasonal virus. As a side note, interestingly the virus had been prevalent in children and young adults with 80% of deaths primarily from those under the age of 65 years of age, according to the US Centre for Disease Control.
When we imagine the initially poor choices performed by countries even at a government state level, we can begin to realise the unfortunate impact a subsequently inappropriately named virus on the people from the place the virus is named after. They are not only subject to the ignorance of the state but now of the masses of society, which can often be far worse. Making the debatable assumption that state officials are by contrast more educated than the majority of its population, we can understand that the negative implications of discrimination against a certain group of people can trickle from the masses to the top, eventually becoming institutionalised and state-sponsored as result of popular culture. Today, in 2020 with COVID-19, we speak in regards to humans, not pigs. Although some may be quick to realise the devastating consequences of naming a virus after poor, innocent pigs, causing them to suffer around the world, the same people may not be concerned by racial attacks in response to the virus, such as Asian people being assaulted in the streets.
We have a name for this virus so why is it that some people are so desperate to reject the official, neutral naming of COVID-19? I see this as an issue of agenda, the agenda simply being that this virus has become the perfect time for those with underlying, pre-existing racist tendencies to use the outbreak as an outlet or excuse for their true colours. Let’s think, why would an individual make it their purpose to physically attack a fellow human being if they were truly concerned about potentially catching the virus from that victim? In the case of Donald Trump, and others, rejecting the official naming, my take is that they have an underlying desire to make a point that this virus is from China, despite the WHO making clear that the origins of the virus are still unknown.
To make a conscious choice to reject official naming, knowing the consequences of instead choosing to use a name steeped in negative connotations exposes one’s inner need to make a point to demonise a people for political gain instead of considering the safety of one’s innocent civilians of the same or similar heritage. So, Donald Trump’s choice to make his point clear that the virus “comes from China” indirectly harms Asian-Americans in the United States, and subsequently other people around the world who look somewhat Asian.
To summarise, it matters not which heritage or background we come from; we are more mindful and aware of issues in society when we are inquisitive to challenge them as a response to personal experiences. Speaking up for a particular people that one belongs to will help society progress, but when one speaks for a group that one does not belong to it can be even more powerful. I foresee once this situation is over, that a greater amount of people of Asian heritage will be proactive about speaking up against injustices that have so long occurred against various cultural groups. I see this ordeal as at least an excellent learning point; a civilisation is only as good as the way it treats its most unfortunate and under-represented people in any time of need. This is certainly what we should all strive for.
Stay at Home.
Protect the NHS.
We will get through this together.
[Live] Novel COVID-19 cases display: https://ncov2019.live/data
[2014] BBC Blog regarding discrimination during the Ebola outbreak: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29714657
[2009] Reuters article on pandemic actions concerning pork: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-flu-who-trade/flu-fears-prompt-new-bans-on-pork-meat-imports-idUSTRE5434NP20090504
Wikipedia Article on pandemic actions concerning pork: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_actions_concerning_pigs
Centre for Disease Control – Past Pandemic, 2009 H1N1: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html
[2015] Official WHO document on Best Practices for the Naming of New Infectious Diseases: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/163636/WHO_HSE_FOS_15.1_eng.pdf
Comments