Search

As a researcher, I’m interested in the political, ecological, and cultural debates around mosquito-borne diseases and the solutions proposed to mitigate them.

When we received the task, my first impulse was to investigate about the contemporary effects of anthropogenic climate change in mosquito-borne diseases in New Orleans. But I was afraid to make the same mistake that I did in my PhD research. I wrote my PhD proposal while based in the US, more specifically in New England, during the Zika epidemic, and proposed to understand how scientists were studying ecological climate change and mosquitoes in Brazil. However, once I arrived in the country the political climate was a much more pressing issue, with the dismantling of health and scientific institutions.

Thus, after our meeting yesterday, and Jason Ludwig’s reminder that the theme of our Field Campus is the plantation, I decided to focus on how it related to mosquitoes in New Orleans.

The Aedes aegypti mosquito and the yellow fever virus it can transmit are imbricated in the violent histories of settler-colonialism and slavery that define the plantation economy. The mosquito and the virus arrived in the Americas in the same ships that brought enslaved peoples from Africa. The city of New Orleans had its first yellow fever epidemic in 1796, with frequent epidemics happening between 1817 and 1905. What caused New Orleans to be the “City of the Dead,” as Kristin Gupta has indicated, was yellow fever. However, as historian Urmi Engineer Willoughby points out, the slave trade cannot explain alone the spread and persistance of the disease in the region: "Alterations to the landscape, combined with demographic changes resulting from the rise of sugar production, slavery, and urban growth all contributed to the region’s development as a yellow fever zone." For example, sugar cultivation created ideal conditions for mosquito proliferation because of the extensive landscape alteration and ecological instabilities, including heavy deforestation and the construction of drainage ditches and canals.

Historian Kathryn Olivarius examines how for whites "acclimatization" to the disease played a role in hierarchies with “acclimated” (immune) people at the top and a great mass of “unacclimated” (non-immune) people and how for black enslaved people "who were embodied capital, immunity enhanced the value and safety of that capital for their white owners, strengthening the set of racialized assumptions about the black body bolstering racial slavery."

As I continue to think through these topics, I wonder how both the historical materialities of the plantation and the contemporary anthropogenic changes might be influencing mosquito-borne diseases in New Orleans nowadays? And more, how the regions’ histories of race and class might still be shaping the effects of these diseases and how debates about them are framed?

The study was published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed journal on the prevention, diagnoisis, and management of infectious disease. The journal seems to be genrally well respected.

Following the attacks on 9/11/2001, a number of health issues arose in the population of residents and workers present. Dust and other toxins inhaled from the rubble created a number of respiratory issues. The need for monitoring of these, and other, health conditions is what lead to the need for such a policy. Without the policy in place, victims would need to fund their own healthcare, and with the large number of affected people, the price would be more or less ridiculous to force on people. 

The film gave a lot of instances where the providers were more or less just having fun. For example, nearly every interview invoved the guys sitting down and drinking a beer while joking. While this proved their humanity, it also showed that the doctors spent much of their free time having fun rather than getting sleep. I would assume that they weren't drinkng while still "on call" or planning on giving care, and thus had the time to get proper rest. The amount of luxury afforded to the doctors after the trip also was a bit less compelling. At the end, the doctors were swimming at a nice pool and just relaxing, which is understandable for destressing. But it also seemed to take away some perspective. These doctors go on about how little resources they have to give and how the wish they could stay on their mission, but immediately turn back to luxury. Its just a bit hypocritical. And I understand that they cannot directly contribute to the people they care for in terms of wealth, but I found it was a bit unnecessary to include in the film.