The long and ugly tradition of treating Africa as a dirty, diseased place

A tangentially related story about rats in New York City was published by the New York Times a few days ago[1]. An examination of 133 rats turned up hantavirus, which can cause hemorrhagic fever, as well as 18 viruses that are new to science. New York, like many major cities in the US, has a huge rat problem so one can only imagine what else is lurking right here at home.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/science/rats-and-their-ala...

A few years ago in Pennsylvania, I struck and killed a deer with my car (nearly totaling my car in the process.) Another man driving down the road stopped to ask if I needed any help. After I assured him that I was okay, he asked me what I planned on doing with the deer. I told him that I didn't know what the proper procedure was, or who should be called to clean it up.

He asked if he could have it.

Apparently the only restriction on eating roadkill, at least at the time, was that the antlers had to be turned over to Fish&Game (some sort of anti-poaching measure).

This article is telling me that the majority of Americans are overestimating their exposure to the Ebola virus, while a few weeks ago I read an article in the same vein stating that Americans have a bad sense for how quickly viruses can spread. Is this a change based on the actual perception of Americans having changed or rather just differing opinions formed from differing source information? I am speaking in generalities of course, as I have not linked the other article and would not begin to know where to find it.

Great article, and I'm fascinated by the link to the Newsweek magazine cover in question:

http://www.donotlink.com/baqi

I suppose that, in most cases, it'd be far easier to `nofollow` the link, but I find it fascinating that there's an opportunity for added commentary beyond what you'd get by just nofollow'ing.

Long article about how Europeans wronged Africa in the past to preempt any talk of movement restrictions from Ebola-affected areas to the US.

Because racism!

How does an article titled "The long and ugly tradition of treating Africa as a dirty, diseased place" not offer any hard evidence about the cleanliness and disease rate of Africa compared to the rest of the world...

Treating Africa as a dirty, diseased place is obviously a disservice to Africans, but with the booming economic opportunities increasingly available to everyone through the Internet, it might also very well be a disservice to you.

    identifying perceived “flaws” in the out-group’s appearance, practice or norms

This article contains racist "othering" of northern europeans, who are already a declining demographic on this planet. Enough.