It didn't take long for Social Justice Warriors to pick up the mantra that Covid19 is affecting people of color in higher numbers than whites. And that we should all be ashamed that more white people aren't dying.
When I read these headlines I can't help but think, when will these people get over themselves? Oh, I forgot, they are supreme narcissists, so I should dismiss that stupid notion. We are hearing these complaints from the same people that complain about voting access, suggesting that minorities would turn out in larger numbers if they weren't intimidated by registration forms, by voter ID requirements, and by Republicans who demand they enter voting booths alone. These are the same people telling us that invading outlaws are more industrious than spoiled white Americans. The same ones that demand gender neutral bathrooms and restrictions on Christmas music in department stores.
These are the same people that demand we recognize the "accepted science" that the world is in a terminal free-fall unless we eliminate the combustion engine. Now they are ignoring the "accepted science" that viruses don't discriminate by skin color or race.
But that won't stop them from using the epidemic as a rallying point to conscript new believers in the New Green Deal and Globalism. The Progressive complainers note that minorities are disproportionately exposed to environmental decay like freeway exhaust fumes, high energy power transmission lines, and industrial air pollution because they more commonly live in lower income neighborhoods where those kinds of conditions are more prevalent. Therefore, presumably, they suffer underlying lung damage that makes them more susceptible to the upper respiratory disease.
But they show no compassion for the millions of poor white people across the nation or around the world who also live in poverty. I guess they deserve to get sick because they are guilty of being genetically linked to Civil War Era slave owners.
The idea that society has been negligent in preparing for a virulent epidemic is a reasonable assessment. That we could and should do more to be prepared and to help people be more healthy by developing public access to basic healthcare for the poor is fine. I think we have, in general, been moving in that direction. Increasing life expectancy worldwide is proof.
But the facts are clear, that even in countries with huge social safety nets, free society can't force people to be more active, to eat better, or to stop weakening their own immune systems with poor food and lifestyle choices. People have to want to make the right choices that will help them stay healthier and live longer.
Health is like education: Despite what politicians say, you can't just give people an education or good health. They have to earn it. Access is a different issue. Giving people access to healthcare is a noble goal, but if people over-indulge in poor food choices, destroy their immune systems with alcohol or drugs, and sit in front of a computer game instead of getting exercise, all the healthcare in the world is going to be wasted on them. Sending a kid to a great college will not provide them with wisdom if they are not motivated to learn.
Unfortunately Progressives have little regard for freedom precisely because it allows people to be, well, people. Instead they would prefer a society where everyone lives under a strict collectivist formula, where the good of the majority is determined by an elite group of intellectuals that act as critical parents to a population of subdued children.
Why don't those people move to China where that social construct exists right now? They would be able to get cheaper housing, full healthcare and free education as well as full government provided employment.
Look at how poorly Michelle Obama's school food program was received. The students were given healthier food selections which meant less food and more fruits and vegetables to fight obesity and diabetes. But this didn't meet the needs of many kids who got fewer choices and sometimes food that was culturally strange. A lot of food went uneaten and the administrators realized they were losing money. We can discuss the cultural reasons, but skin color had nothing to do with it. The kids didn't want airline-style box lunches made up of dry, flavorless and unsatisfying items they weren't used to. Since Michelle Obama was driving the initiative, when parents and administrators pushed back, that too became a race issue.
Catching an airborne contagion is about as indiscriminate as being bitten by a mosquito. Scientists think mosquitoes choose who to bite based mostly on the microbiota that populates the human skin, not the skin's color or odor. Likewise, Covid19 seems to prefer those with underlying immune system deficiencies, not the race of its victims. Can we say people who live in less healthy environs are more vulnerable? Yes, but that is not a function of institutional racism, it is a function of social stratification and lifestyles.
They would have a better argument if data showed that hospitals refused to treat Covid19 victims because they had dark skin. But that is not happening which proves the race card is nothing more than another attempt to blame social instability on white people.
The complainers never offer solutions other than forced redistribution of wealth. No matter what the problem is, collectivists believe more money will solve it. So before another pandemic, if we did things their way, we should simply confiscate wealth that is concentrated and spread it around more equally. Then all suffering will be equal. Then dying from contagious diseases would just be a lottery, with a much wider distribution of winners ( i.e., losers). The misery would be miles wide and only a quarter inch deep.
What made me think a pandemic that threatens all of us equally would not be used to advance the racism narrative? Maybe wishful thinking or maybe I am coming down with something...