Posted this on my political forum re: the mini-controversy regarding "the China virus:"
__________
[the OP] spoke of "ethnic scapegoating." I reiterate that it's not incorrect to speak of a virus in terms of its point of origin, and that by NOT doing so, you open the door to losing track of persons who may be responsible for the virus' promulgation.
For instance, on an episode of THE VIEW this week, Lisa Ling found fault with Trump's lack of action in the first two months (which she describes as "months and months," as if half a year transpired). While (falsely) claiming that she didn't want to play the blame game, she claimed that Trump's only possible reason for using the term "Chinese virus" was to "deflect" from his own lack of action. "Wag the Pekingese Dog," if you will.
She also talked out of both sides of her face. One minute she claims she has "no love for the Chinese government" and that she found their hushup "indefensible." Yet the next minute she claims that it wouldn't made any difference to whether or not the U.S. took the disease more seriously as to its "severity?" Hello? Does anyone actually believe that, if the Chinese gov't had been totally transparent in January, Trump would not have ramped up defenses then, instead of in March?
This sort of willful amnesia is precisely what I'm talking about. Ling is of Chinese extraction, and some of her people have undoubtedly been attacked or inconvenienced by dimwit racists. But her problems don't excuse her attempt to rewrite the same history we've all experienced. At the end of her screed Ling even claims "we should be asking China for help" in managing our situation. Yeah, if I were Prez I don't think I'd be in any great hurry to follow China's lead. I don't have to believe that she likes the Chinese Communist government to realize that she's the one using the virus as an excuse to attack Trump on the usual talking-points of supposed inefficiency and supposed racism.
On a semi-related note, I heard some idiot reporter on MEET THE PRESS ask Joe Biden if Trump "had blood on his hands." Wow, talk about playing to the peanut gallery! At least Ling was relatively subtle in her partisanship. ADDENDA: the idiot reporter was Chuck Todd, whom I've never watched before, and plan not to watch again.
WITCHY WOMAN
11 minutes ago
4 comments:
Hi there Gene.
I'm sorry for keeping quiet for so long, although I read every update of your blog(s).
As to the matter at hand, i.e. Trump, as you can well imagine, the United States President doesn't garner many sympathies outside the US, and mainly in Europe, where the main media outlets (TV and newsprint, both) harbor a strong bias against him. And here thay also took exception to him referring to Covid-19 as the Chinese Virus, treating it as some kind of racist slur. I just ask them to imagine if the virus had originated in Montreal instead of in Wuhan, would Trumpo think twice about referring to it as "the Canadian virus"?
I don't think so. And it being so, how can we configure it as somewhat racially-tainted?
Cheers, and keep up the great work,
Sherman
Thanks, Sherman. As I've said occasionally, I realize that with this blog I'm mostly trying to make sense of a personal system that keeps changing over the years, so I appreciate anyone's attempt to venture into the same depths with me.
An additional note is that according to Google Trump said on Mar 24 that though he didn't think the use of the term was wrong, he'd agree to stop using it. Ling's VIEW appearance was on the 27th, and since the show's supposed to be "live," she was plainly being mendacious to act as if the term's use was some great abuse that the Prez was still committing. But hey, she had her whole rap rehearsed, so why let facts get in the way?
Hi Gene,
As to the depths you swim in, I feel myself fascinated with your system and its coherence. And I repeatedly find myself looking for some of the "texts" (going here for a litle PoMo jargon) you examine here. Just this last year I had to buy the 5-volume collection of Seabury Quinn's Jules de Grandin tales after reading your post about it (although you didn't exactly lavish it with high praise). So, even if I myself don't usually go to such systematic analysis of works as you do, I always find new motives of interest on your writings: not only new works to seek out, but some unexpected ways to look back at some of my favourite works. Case in point, this last post of yours tracing the master threads of MOBY DICK, CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS, Kirby's NEW GODS.... man, those were all my teenage "texts".
As to Ling's rant, maybe she should try to fathom the mystery of way Madrid's current government (as near to the extreme left in Europe as you can find at this moment) is not actively trying to eliminate from History books any reference to the SPANISH flu... That, at least, could have some justice in it as Spain had nothing to do with the flu's zero point, contrary to China in relation to Covid-19.
But, alas, sic transit sinistra mundi....
Cheers,
Sherman
Good point re: the Spanish flu.
Now that I've just finished the third and last of Wheatley's supernatural thrillers with his "Musketeer" characters, I tend to feel that Books Two and Three are almost rewrites of the superlative Book One, with lots more politics and many overly informative lectures,
By comparison, Seabury Quinn certainly re-used plots, but he was consistently inventive, and a damn good storyteller. Some stories evince racist imagery, but it's generally so over the top that I doubt its audience took it all that seriously-- a feeling I recently expressed when reviewing 1932's MASK OF FU MANCHU.
Post a Comment