We Shouldn’t Need to Explain Why Trump’s “Chinese Virus” Tweet Is Wrong. But Here We Are.

Weighing in on the latest and loudest in a historical series of “They did it!”s.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the world, so does another contagion, this one spread by political profiteers, opportunists, and grandstanders cashing in on a familiar trade. Whenever a bodily virus hits, a cultural virus tags along: the impulse to scapegoat an entire race, ethnicity, or nationality. “They did it” is the favorite refrain of fearmongers when contagion strikes, and the resulting violence is all too real. Partisan point-scoring is a predictable aspect of any outbreak, and the incentive is clear. A virus’s origin story is yours if you can frame it—especially if you can label it: the “Wuhan Virus.”

A Twitter fight and media shouting match have erupted over what to call this contagion after GOP Rep. Paul Gosar named it “Wuhan Virus” and got hammered for labeling it after the Chinese city where the coronavirus emerged. The battle over naming hasn’t stopped there. Republican lawmakers continue to fix blame by labeling it “Wuhan Virus,” “Chinese Coronavirus,” and “foreign virus,” ascribing fault to geography despite health experts’ insistence that these labels are inaccurate and dangerously divisive. On Thursday, Sen. Tom Cotton called it “Wuhan Virus” in announcing his DC office was closing just two days after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agreed with a reporter that it’s “absolutely wrong and inappropriate” to use that label—and Cotton was accused of lending credibility to the conspiracy theory that China released the coronavirus as a bioweapon.

As if on cue, as we were finalizing this column, Trump went full “Chinese Virus” on us:

There’s a loud history of equating immigrants with disease, from the 1832 cholera outbreak, which was blamed on Irish Catholic immigrants, to the 1870s quarantining of San Francisco’s Chinatown residents following outbreaks of smallpox and other diseases presumed to spring from the neighborhood, setting the scene for the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.

But why resist an easy China did it! storyline when you’ve got an opportunity for shameless political posturing? China is a regular punching bag for a president who lays blame for all sorts of global ills at China’s door; he has already sparked a trade war with China, plunging any semblance of bilateralism to historic lows. Countless Republicans seem to see the coronavirus—uh, Wuhan Virus—as another Team Trump layup that they’re not gonna miss.

Never mind that the World Health Organization and CDC agree that the virus is “the coronavirus” and that everyone should “ensure accurate and fair” reporting, as the Asian American Journalists Association says, by reducing social stigma. “Stigma occurs when people negatively associate an infectious disease with a specific population,” WHO announced. “People are being labelled, stereotyped, separated and/or experience loss of status and discrimination because of a potential negative affiliation with #COVID19.”

China is in the crosshairs this time, but in living memory other regions have had their turns: An A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016 A(H3N2)–like virus got shortened to “Singapore virus.” A B/Yamagata virus got shortened to “Yamagata virus,” after the city in Japan. There’s the “Spanish Flu.” The “Middle East Respiratory Syndrome” (MERS).

To anyone remotely interested in scientific literacy and media transparency—and the reduction of scapegoating and vilification during this pandemic—a bookmarkable tip from Mother Jonesstyle guide:

The coronavirus, officially SARS-CoV-2, is a virus, not a disease, and the disease it causes is COVID-19 (or coronavirus disease), deriving from CO(rona) VI(rus) D(isease)-(20)19. COVID-19 is also called “the coronavirus disease.” It’s not accurate to say “the virus COVID-19” (that’s the disease). Phrases to keep on hand: “COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus”; “the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate