I read North Carolina and the Problem of AIDS: Advocacy, Politics, and Race in
the South for Dr. Eisenberg’s ‘The History of HIV/AIDS’, but I think the
issues (and biases) discussed are relevant to our class as well. While I have
issues with how the book presents African American communities, when
considering how AIDS activism and awareness spread in the 1980’s, it accurately shows how the
narrative is overwhelmingly white.
There are still negative
connotations associated with HIV/AIDS, but this was far stronger in the early
years of the epidemic. Human Immunodeficiency Virus was first ‘discovered’ in
California in 1980, and identified as ‘Gay-Related Immune Deficiency’ (GRID),
AIDS grew to into an epidemic in the 1980’s and 90’s. The AIDS activists that
gained the most publicity were white, middle class, gay men. Even when the
reported demographics of the disease started shifting away from this popularized
image towards women and minorities, the racism engrained in US culture created
an environment where black men and women were more acutely impacted by the
spread of the disease.
During the early stages of research
on the disease, social scientists wanted to find out how to best educate and
help the AIDS effected populations. However, “most of the volunteer recruiting
took place in gay bars, among gay-affirming groups, through gay social networks,
and in the gay media” (Inrig, 2011). Due to the political and social climate,
these areas were dominantly white. The only people who were able to speak to
researchers about different ways to promote HIV/AIDS awareness were from one
race; this method completely discounted an entire population exposed to the
deadly disease. Coupled with the reduced rate of AIDS reported in minorities,
“early program[ing] largely… relied on strategies tested or vetted by white
AIDS activists” (Inrig). Though AIDS disproportionately affected the black
community, they had no say in the legislation or programs to deal with it.
The lack of AIDS awareness in black
communities continued to stem from the notion that HIV/AIDS was a ‘white’
disease. Throughout the epidemic, the prominent activism leadership was white.
People incorrectly assumed that interracial relationships were not happening,
and as a result, culturally competent safe sex messages were not created. Even
spanning into the 1990’s, when the black struggle with AIDS continued to
increase while white demographics had largely leveled out, the clash between
WHITE gay men and WHITE conservative politicians gained the most attention in
America. The late 80’s showed African American populations with fewer grassroot
movements, and a later diagnosis. Black
families ended up taking on most of the care for black patients, even if they
were not able to financially support them (Inrig). Black plight was almost
entirely cut out of the picture for much of the epidemic. While not surprising,
it is incredible and shameful that life and death matters for white populations
completely overshadow that of black populations, even within the same sickness.
Stephen J. Inrig, North
Carolina and the Problem of AIDS: Advocacy, Politics, and Race in the South,
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011).
This post is very informative and sheds light on the current situation of health care for black communities today. I am currently in the class, Race Thinking and Health Disparities, and this is a widely discussed topic in the class. You stated the research for AIDS/HIV epidemic focused primarily on white people when any race can be effected by this disease. Black people face assumptions such as these that prevent them from early diagnosis. Without the early diagnosis, it is more difficult for black people to receive treatment in time. Labeling diseases as white disease or black disease, excludes populations from adequate health care. Fortunately, work is being done to correct these fallacies; however, health disparities still exist for African Americans to make it difficult to live a health life.
ReplyDeleteYour point about a lack of diagnosis or educational resources for African Americans who had HIV/AIDS despite being significant population of this disease is an important one. It is one that can also be applied to History. Historically, African Americans have been a large part of many moments but a lack of preserved sources about their presence or the focus on another presence during these moments means that they are excluded from the narrative. Fortunately, alternate sources such as African American historical guilds have written about their presence and a re-examination of the master narrative of history is underway. However, the lack of inclusion is an important thing to think about and grapple with.
ReplyDeleteI think this discussion also leads into America's general ambivalence to providing education to minorities. A easily preventable disease is made worse by lack of information tied to racial prestigious. As well as lack of black representation leads to confusing narratives and the further formation of myths. I'm very curious about professor Eisenburg's class in linking issues of gender to other social differences.
ReplyDelete