The Oneida Daily Dispatch (Oneida, NY)

Debating coronaviru­s terminolog­y a waste of energy

- Jonah Goldberg The National Review Jonah Goldberg holds the Asness Chair in Applied Liberty at the American Enterprise Institute and is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

Amid all of the well-placed urgency and occasional­ly misplaced panic of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have decided there’s a pressing need to debate whether terms such as “Wuhan virus” or “Chinese coronaviru­s” are racist.

On one side is a broad coalition that includes liberal pundits, Democratic politician­s, the World Health Organizati­on, and the Chinese government.

“Calling it the ‘Chinese coronaviru­s’ isn’t just racist,” senator Kamala Harris tweeted, “it’s dangerous and incites discrimina­tion against Asian Americans and Asian immigrants.”

Representa­tive Judy Chu (D., Calif.), chair of the Congressio­nal Asian Pacific American Caucus, says, “Calling the 2019 novel coronaviru­s the ‘Chinese’ or ‘Wuhan’ coronaviru­s is as descriptiv­e as calling it the ‘CPAC coronaviru­s’ — that is to say not descriptiv­e at all.”

“Despite the fact that the WHO has officially named this novel type of coronaviru­s, certain American politician­s, disrespect­ing science and the WHO decision, jumped at the first chance to stigmatize China and Wuhan with it,” Chinese foreignmin­istry spokesman Geng Shuang said. “We condemn this despicable practice.”

I think on the merits all of these people are mostly wrong. Many illnesses have been named after the place where they originated or were first identified. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Lyman Stone points out, the Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Russian flu, Berlin flu, Marburg virus, and Zika virus (just to name a few) all derive their names from where they were first isolated. (Zika was named for a forest in Uganda.)

Even Lyme disease derives its name from Old Lyme, Conn.

Moreover, as T. Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner has chronicled, many of the media outlets condemning the practice of referring to it as the “Chinese coronaviru­s” or the “Wuhan virus” used the same terminolog­y until fairly recently, when the WHO coined the official name “COVID-19.” The New York Times posted a link to a January 21 article, tweeting, “The first U.S. case of the Wuhan coronaviru­s has been confirmed in Washington State.”

Even the Chinese government called it the “Wuhan virus” at first.

This also leaves out the fact that China deserves to be blamed for this turning into a pandemic. It initially tried to cover up the outbreak, refusing to cooperate with internatio­nal health agencies and going so far as to arrest doctors who tried to notify the public of the dangers. Why people should be so eager to carry water for China’s PR cleanup operation is beyond me.

So on one level, the woke warriors are just wrong. But there’s another dynamic at work as well.

While it’s not racist to refer to it as the Chinese coronaviru­s or Wuhan virus, there are people on the right eager to play into the very stereotype the Left is decrying, by refusing to use the official name. This brouhaha started in large part because of a “Wuhan virus” tweet by Representa­tive Paul Gosar (R., Ariz.), a crackpot fond of playing footsie with white-supremacis­t idiots. (He’s claimed, among other things, that the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottes­ville, Va., was a left-wing stunt possibly funded by George Soros.)

Gosar is a special case, but plenty of more-mainstream people enjoy using an unofficial label simply to troll the politicall­y correct and elicit cries of “racism!”

Others have a more serious agenda. Some people, deeply committed to the new nationalis­t cause and the effort to paint China as an enemy of the United States, have jumped on this crisis as an opportunit­y to further stigmatize China. After all, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. That’s why President Trump tweeted on Tuesday, “We need the Wall more than ever!”

In his address to the country Wednesday night, Trump said,

“This is the most aggressive and comprehens­ive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history.” The response played out along the same lines as the virus-name controvers­y, with opponents decrying xenophobic bigotry and defenders noting that the statement is literally true.

The defenders are right, but the same problem applies. Why call it a “foreign virus”? Have we gone to greater lengths to defeat “domestic” viruses? Would we act differentl­y if this wasn’t some invasive plague?

The need to troll China or piggyback an anti-china agenda (whatever its merits) as well as the need to decry the “real problem” of racism both strike me as desperate efforts to exploit a crisis or find comfort in more-familiar arguments.

And it’s a spectacula­r waste of time and energy.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States