Ebola should actually be easier to contain in any civilized country such as the US. Quarantine measures and disposing of infected bodies properly would limit the pandemic.
In Congo Kinshasa, it's just the chaos politically, there is no real government in many parts of this country, the real danger is that it is not a small country at all, 80+ millions of inhabitants, many can't be reach by the WHO because of the wars and infighting between the "government" and militias. So the crisis there has great chances of getting worse, not better.
Furthermore, many many many people locals despise foreigners and particularly white people, for historical reasons, or just ignorance, and the culture is extremely unsanitary (touching and living with the dead, consuming bush meat or worse, ritualistic cannibalism, and what not), some straight out think Ebola is a white conspiracy.
This isn't a problem only money can solve this time.
>Ebola should actually be easier to contain in any civilized country such as the US. Quarantine measures and disposing of infected bodies properly would limit the pandemic.
I would be careful of the use of the word 'civilized' in this context. You're implying DRC and/or other African countries are uncivilized. Which is just not true.
> I would be careful of the use of the word 'civilized' in this context. You're implying DRC and/or other African countries are uncivilized. Which is just not true.
No, I stand by what I said and by the following definitions of the word "civilized", and never talked about "other African countries":
> easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered:
> having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
Given the tragedy that has been going on for more than half a century in that part of the world, I couldn't care less about euphemisms and political correctness, they have not solved anything.
The culture absolutely needs to evolve if locals want to survive Ebola, there is absolutely no way around it, I'm not a cultural relativist. It's a matter of life and death.
> easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered:
> having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
So the US meets these characteristics by your logic but DRC does not? Have you traveled much in rural/poor US? Have you been to puerto rico? Are those areas equally uncivilized? Would you characterize south chicago as uncivilized as well?
In anthropology (maybe specifically american anthropology), the descriptor 'civilized' was pretty much thrown out during their reformation (I think it was 1970s?). At best, today it's pretty much considered a coded term for 'not conforming to my view of what a society should look like'(aka it's ethnocentrically viewed as inferior). At worst, you can tie the usages of the descriptors 'barbaric' and 'civilized' back to the biological determinism and eugenics movements.
>Given the tragedy that has been going on for more than half a century in that part of the world, I couldn't care less about euphemisms and political correctness, they have not solved anything.
What tragedy? and which part of the world? DRC is not near Liberia or Guinea where the other more recent highly publicized Ebola outbreaks have been. Are you referring to the civil war in DRC? It's really complicated and at the end of the day has root causes that tie back to neocolonialism and colonialism constructs created by so-called civilized societies.
I'm not trying to be politically correct. I wasn't even being all that critical of your original statement. I was trying to point out that word choice matters. While most of what you wrote originally is valid, my family (which is Cameroonian) would not listen to anything you had to say because you used the term 'civilized.' It would immediately shut down discourse.
Even if that specific example is false, there is a rich and well sourced history of African Americans (and other marginalized groups) being used in medical experimentation in the US or by US organizations.
Edit - my family (Cameroonian) almost 100% believes Ebola was either created or intentionally released by either Europe or the US as part of research or guerrilla warfare. There are no facts involved but it's a very common belief for people that grow up in the region.
What is the politically appropriate word instead of civilized to enumerate the difference between taking a public health first approach vs. killing first responders on conspiracy?
I would call them suspicious instead of uncivilized.
Europeans have tested harmful drugs on Africans without their knowledge for more than 2 centuries (including injecting live cancer cells and spreading HIV in very recent cases).
I don't think we can blame them for avoiding this treatment like the plague.
I'm empathetic to the idea that for entirely uneducated populations differentiating between legitimate treatment and experimentation is impossible, so their instinct is to avoid it.
I'd still be wary of making too many excuses for their wanton attack and murder on health-care workers as mere suspicion, as that gives off an impression of racism of lower expectations, in my humble opinion. Or, I mean, even if it doesn't, at a certain point we need to draw the line at acceptable behavior. Whether it's their upbringing, or they are justifiably suspicions, they are evil, or they are uneducated, in the end it sort of doesn't matter, right? It's still some other group trying to kill other people, where we have a belief on which one is correct and which one isn't.
I get your point - my issue was with the long history of cultures being called 'civilized' or 'advanced'. These terms are still too commonly used and mostly out of ignorance of their origins.
Just to throw it out there - I don't live there, I'm not a citizen of their community - why does my values judgement matter? Why am I judging what is acceptable for them to do in their neighborhoods and communities?
I'm a white american, married into an Cameroonian family, spend my time 90-10 split between US and Cameroon. If Cameroon was having a crisis over 'X', I'd ask my family and our friends what they think should be done in their cities about 'X.' I might ask questions or offer critiques but at the end of the day, they are the only ones that understand their communities, can solve their problems and judge a situation. Similarly, if my city was having an issue, I might be curious what they thought or how they solved similar issues, but I wouldn't expect them to dictate solutions or make a values judgement on my community.
> Why am I judging what is acceptable for them to do in their neighborhoods and communities?
There is a nihilistic rabbit hole this can take you down. Values are suspended in air, only there because we want them to be. Why is it unacceptable for people in their own neighborhoods and communities to murder others in cold blood?
Is it all relative? Is that a choice a community can take, that is equally valid as all other choices? Or should there be a preferred community, which all humans should strive towards. A civilized platonic ideal.
I'm okay with taking the more chauvinistic view that our way of living is better. Not the best. But better. I'm willing to claim that they would be better too if they became more educated, learned to understand it's best to not kill people based on witchcraft. This does involve me thinking that I am more civilized and above them on a hierarchy of values. I'm okay with that. I think you should be too.
Okay, first off, who has said these medical workers are being murdered in cold blood due to the locals beliefs in witchcraft. All that this link referenced is suspicion, they didn't say suspicion of what.
This region of the African continent is one of the most exploited regions in the world. Some of the historical tension/mistrust can be tied back to the same hutu and tutsi divide that fed into the Rwandan genocide. I agree education is a key factor but I suspect the geopolitics is a bigger factor in the violence than beliefs in voodoo. They might be suspicious of the motivation of any outsider coming in and telling them what to do. Which is a natural response. If that's coupled with historical fear or traumatic memories of a past where outsiders came into communities and murdered community members, I could logically see some of these conflicts turning violent.
I do believe my overall quality of life might be better than theirs, but I don't believe that has anything to do with my values or my way of living. I also believe that quality of life is more due to structural factors - factors that are mostly out of control of the individual and their local community. So am I lucky to have lived my life in regions where the controlling interests have created favorable conditions? Yes, I am very lucky. Do I judge others who have not? No I try not to.
In Congo Kinshasa, it's just the chaos politically, there is no real government in many parts of this country, the real danger is that it is not a small country at all, 80+ millions of inhabitants, many can't be reach by the WHO because of the wars and infighting between the "government" and militias. So the crisis there has great chances of getting worse, not better.
Furthermore, many many many people locals despise foreigners and particularly white people, for historical reasons, or just ignorance, and the culture is extremely unsanitary (touching and living with the dead, consuming bush meat or worse, ritualistic cannibalism, and what not), some straight out think Ebola is a white conspiracy.
This isn't a problem only money can solve this time.