Ebola, Xenophobia, and Racism

Ebola is a virus is responsible for taking the at least 4,500 lives in the West African countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea (Ebola Fast Facts, CNN).  Three cases of Ebola have been diagnosed in United States in the past month, and one patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, was a Liberian citizen who died on US soil. His death has triggered country-wide anxiety, exposed America’s xenophobic beliefs and, in some cases, produced explicit racial discrimination.

American media coverage has inflicted us with the irrational fear that the United States is at considerable risk for the spread of Ebola. Patient Zero was a two-year-old from Guinea who died last December (Emergence of Zaire Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea, Baize). However, it was not until July when two (Caucasian) Americans, Dr. Kent Brantly and aid worker Nancy Writebol, were infected with the Ebola in Liberia that media coverage gained traction and attention in the United States (If news media had covered Ebola sooner, could latest outbreak have been contained, Farhi).

Three Caucasian people were successfully treated with an experimental drug, but when Duncan came to a Dallas emergency room reporting that he was recently in Liberia and was experiencing Ebola-like symptoms, he was sent home with antibiotics as if he had a bad cold. Two days later, of course, he returned to the hospital by which time it was too late to treat his Ebola virus and he subsequently expired. Some have attributed Duncan’s demise to a lack of communication between nurses and doctors. Others, like Duncan’s nephew, have insisted to the media that his inadequate care was a result of his race and lack of insurance (Ebola didn’t have to kill Thomas Eric Duncan, Weeks).

  

Months before Duncan came to America, a late August Newsweek installment featured a cartoon chimpanzee, with the caption, “Smuggled bush meat could spark a U.S. epidemic.” This portrayal equates chimpanzees with African people—and implies that African people who ate bush meat were the ones who began the recent epidemic that would shortly invade America. The Washington Post quickly released a story to disprove Newsweek’s theory, offering the theory that the outbreak was more likely due to fruit bats, “reservoirs of the Ebola virus” (The long and ugly tradition of treating Africa as a dirty, diseased place, Seay). This was given credibility based on an outbreak in May-November 2007 in the Congo.

Articles like Newsweek’s have been perpetuating xenophobia, the fear of foreigners. Elisabeth Hasselback from Fox News continues to question why America has yet to close its borders to planes flying in from western African countries, scroll down to see the video. To make matters worse, Republicans in Congress are trying to connect Ebola with immigrants crossing the US-Mexico border  (GOP strokes Ebola fears against immigrants, Santana). Their fear of Mexican immigrants carrying Ebola is an irrational smokescreen to advance their policy on border closures. There is absolutely no evidence to link these border issues with Ebola. Thousands of lives are lost in Africa due to the virus and the western media is putting the spotlight on Republicans making Ebola a political issue.                                                                              

 It is not just the Republicans who are raising fears. Navarro College, a community college in 

Texas, is refusing admission to students from “countries with confirmed Ebola cases” (Ebola Racism Reaches a New Low in Texas, Haglage). A Houston resident with a Nigerian brother-in-law and his nephew both simultaneously received rejection letters citing, “At this time, we believe it is the responsible thing to do to postpone our recruitment in those nations that the Center for Disease Control and the U.S. State Department have identified as at risk” (Ebola Racism Reaches a New Low in Texas, Haglage).This college is making the assumption that everyone from Ebola-infected countries is dangerous.  This attitude is even more concerning because Nigeria, after 42 Ebola free days, has been declared Ebola-free (WHO declares Nigeria Ebola-Free, Reuters) 


Ebola has spurred fear in the United States. The nightly news always has a segment on the status of identified Ebola victims in this country. This is a potential public health crisis to be sure, but Following the failure to recognize Duncan’s symptoms as Ebola, health professionals across the country are on high alert to raise flags and sound alarms when a patient’s history and symptoms suggest possible Ebola virus.  President Obama has even appointed a “czar” to oversee all responses to victims and to potential victims (Appointment of Ebola Czar Creates Controversy, NBC). But even the “czar” won’t be able to quell the worst responses to Ebola—those situations where it is used as an excuse to forward a political agenda or to the unfounded exclusion of people simply because of their race or ethnicity. America has always opened its doors to everyone and should not suddenly shut them because of Ebola. Our health professionals are ready and prepared-so should American society.

Exodus, and Scott's Scandal

 

An upcoming biblical epic, directed by Ridley Scott, called Exodus: Gods and Kings, has created a very big stir in the film industry as of late. All over different social networks people have been using a specifically formed hashtag to show their dislike for the movie's casting by saying #BoycottExodusMovie. I first saw this hashtag used on Facebook before coming to school this semester and decided to look up what was causing such a strong feeling of anger on social medias. What I ultimately found was that the casting of the upcoming movie was almost completely and utterly white-washed, save for the African Americans cast as slaves. Big name white actors were cast in historic roles such as Sigourney Weaver as Queen Tuya , Aaron Paul as Joshua, Christian Bale as Moses, and Joel Edgerton as Ramses. Anger has erupted all over the internet on things like the Huffington Post, Twitter, Facebook, Forbes online, among other well-known websites, and sites that specifically talk about movies. On the Huff Post Entertainment website, the scandal was talked about in the first of the month of October where the author wrote;

"Ridley Scott is one of those guys who’s apparently hellbent on historical accuracy but doesn’t care enough to cast a person of color as Moses or a goddamn African queen while simultaneously filling out the rest of the movie with Black servants and thieves," David Dennis Jr. wrote in a post for Medium called "You Probably Shouldn't Go See Ridley Scott's Pretty Racist 'Exodus' Movie." "But to make the main characters white and everyone else African is cinematic colonialism. It’s creating a piece of historical 'art' that carries on oppressive imagery that’s helped shackle entire countries and corners of the world."

The anger felt by people when they read about or saw the cast is and was rightfully placed. No longer are we in a time where it is acceptable for people to don an ethnicity for no reason other than it being a great acting role. There are actors out there that are most certainly of the right race and ethnicity who would be more than capable of portraying these roles, and yet someone like John Turturro, who plays Pharaoh Seti, is cast over others because he is a big name, has a reputation of being a great actor, and will attract fans/attention and therefore more money. And not only did they decide to make every role of merit a white actor, they also decided that any African actor would be made a slave, servant, or thief. It may be one thing to cast a single role as a white actor, and have the rest be set according to ethnicity as in the movie about Gandhi's life, in which Ben Kingsley played the main title. The film's production crew and creators decided to make every single title role a white actor. On the Forbes website, after speaking a bit about Hollywood's unnecessary battle additives in historical movie, Scott Mendelson, a contributor, said this quite poignant and bluntly honest statement,

"All due respect to the likes of Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Sigourney Weaver, and Aaron Paul, but they presumably don’t resemble whatever Moses and Ramses and company looked like back in the proverbial day. The film has faced accusations of “whitewashing” since the beginning and it’s a tough charge to dispute when you see white actors made up not that differently from the days when John Wayne played Genghis Khan. The film will or won’t work on its own artistic merits of course, but I still find it a bit baffling that an industry now dead-set on maximizing worldwide box office doesn’t make more of an effort to cast actors of appropriate ethnicity even when the story explicitly calls for it."

And he's touching upon a key point. In America we boast our ability and willingness to create controversial movies about all sorts of people all over the world, but do we actually do them right? Do we do them justice? How can we justify our casting choices when they actually don't represent the ethnicity that is being portrayed? Wouldn't (or shouldn't) that actually be considered a misrepresentation as well as historically inaccurate? Also, isn't it essentially a new form of blackface that they are trying to get away with? We, as a society, have come to terms with the fact that black face is wrong on many levels, so why is this movie trying to make it ok to makeup a face into a different ethnicity, which is just as offensive? To further my search on social media I went on my twitter account and searched under #BoycottExodusMovie. People on Twitter have created a backlash to this movie with this hashtag use, questioning its motives, and quite harshly stating their opinion. But they are justified in their reactions, for what they are saying has merit and is, quite frankly, true. For example, here are a few Twitter responses along with the one shown at the top of the blog:

 

 

 Not surprisingly I also discovered a petition going around the internet under further investigation of the topic. I'm not sure if they are calling for a re-make of the movie, or if they just want an explanation, but to date the petition has six hundred and six signers with a caption that says "394 to go." The message to be signed on the petition states,

"To
20th Century Ridley Scott Hollywood,

The Bible says both Egyptians and Ethiopians are
descendants of Ham. Remember, Egypt wasn't invaded by
Rome until 300 BC. Egypt is in Africa, not Europe.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]"

The comment addressing people at the top of the page states. "People must know real history and not European lies. The Europeans didn't even exist in Ancient days. Please do not support fake history." And this was created by a regular guy out in Texas. People understand and name the problem; The control and decisions of those that make the film influence what is seen and who is represented in the media. These films that are meant bring "understanding" about historical events lose their meaning almost instantly when a casting director/main director creates a cast that is white-washed. I find it really interesting and actually quite empowering that regular people, with not much sway over people on the individual level, are taking the time to say their opinion on the internet and try to gather people together to revolt against something that they have all found to be extremely offensive. It goes to show how far we have come as a society because of the need to show


TO WATCH THE TRAILER CLICK BELOW

Mendelson, Scott. "'Exodus: Gods And Kings,' With Christian Bale As Moses, Gets Long Trailer." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

 

Rosen, Christopher. "'Exodus: Gods And Kings' Trailer Will Not Be Humbled." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 Oct. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

 

Wilson, Adidas. "20th Century Fox Ridley Scott Hollywood: The Bible Says Both Egyptians and Ethiopians Are Descendants of Ham. Last Time I Checked That Was Africa." Change.org. Change.org, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.

Saudi Arabia: Starting in 2015, WOMEN CAN FINALLY VOTE!!!!

It is their Basic Right...

What a journey has it been for the women of Saudi Arabia to have their race and ethnicity define everything they can and should do. Saudi Arabian women were granted the right to vote and run in local elections starting in 2015. This is a victory for all those women who fought really hard in making this possible. But still, some of the women fighting for women rights aren't completely satisfied "why not tomorrow? asked Saudi feminist Wajeha al-Hawaidar, quoted the Assocaited Press. "I think the king doesn't want to shake the country, but we look around us and we think it is a shame... when we are still pondering how to meet simple women's rights."

Women in Saudi Arabia aren't granted any power and social structure because of their gender; by simply being women. Gender plays an important role in denying those women some of their basic rights; such as driving " No law in Saudi Arabia says women can't drive, but people must obtain local driver's licenses and they are never issued to women. In June, several dozen women risked arrest by driving in cities around Saudi Arabia in protest."

Gender, race and class define power. And in this case, women are denied some of their basic rights because of their gender race and class. Men in Saudi Arabia do not see this as a major problem because they are given the privilege in being "better" than women simply by being men.

I think Saudis decision is positive one for Arab women because it empowers them, provides them with equality and encourages them to actively participate in society. It's an attempt by Saudi to move towards modernization, following models like the U.S as an example.

All we can hope for, that women in Saudi Arabia will be able to vote and granted some of the basic women rights and not have gender define what they can and can't do.

Resources:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/saudi-arabia-women-vote/


http://www.aawsat.net/2014/02/article55329138