Hey, there's a nice story on the front page today about the 1919 Legislature and the way they worked around, and sometimes in spite of, their own Pandemic.
 |
Front page today
|
When I read though the papers two years ago on the 100th anniversary,
and then again reviewed them last year once we had found ourselves in
the middle of a real Pandemic, it seemed less clear that there were
useful parallels or negative examples to mine from the Legislature's
operations and comportment in 1919. Maybe with the session about to
commence, a third reading now will turn up more interesting
comparisons.
One way I may read them differently now is that on the
earlier reading, it had seemed like the main stories were the
development of very early public health measures, institutionalizing public health by government action, and the superiority today of our modern medical
science. Progress, we had made progress.
Now after the awful fullness of 2020, a reading of the 1918-1919 Pandemic really should
attend more to conflict, to the development and limits of of state powers, to the red scare and
reactionary right, to our libertarian individualism that checks collective action, and to propaganda and the dissemination of information (both sound and unsound).
I think
today's article may still stress too much of a harmonizing reading of the
politics and culture then and now and not give sufficient attention to the nature
and locations of conflict. We may also still impose too much of a sense of having made progress and of teleology.
Maybe there will be more to say later.
Here's a piece about primitive attempts at vaccines that lacked any understanding of a virus, as well as anti-vaccine sentiment by Senator Pierce, later infamous as our KKK-adjacent Governor. They struck a note of defiance, something that certainly rhymes today.
There was also anti-mask and anti-closure sentiment. It is easy to read that as not understanding science, but we have better science today and there is still anti-mask and anti-closure sentiment.