Systemic racism, vigilante racism, and general state violence and oppression directly correlate to health outcomes of people who have been forced to endure these oppressions. Even without having an autoimmune disease, the health outcomes of black people living under a racist state or society is worse than that of white people's health due to the effects racism has on one's mental and physical health and racism-based barriers to health care. Some examples of this are constant stress, hyper vigilance, depression, feelings of hopelessness, high blood pressure, migraines, PTSD, and racism within healthcare.
In apartheid-era South Africa, black people were actively oppressed by the white-controlled government and by the majority of the white citizenry who, at the time, overwhelmingly participated in racist acts and racist violence against black people. Anti-black racism and homophobia directly meant that black people affected by AIDS were far less likely to be given any kind of...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
adequate health care and were, instead, subjected to racist, as well as homophobic and transphobic acts of violence. The white population further dehumanized and demonized black people affected by AIDS.
In apartheid South Africa, over 80% of the black South African population were forced to live in rural ghettos that accounted for 13% of the size of South Africa. As such, HIV/AIDS could spread rapidly but maintain somewhat contained to these sectioned off ghettos, and therefore not threaten, to nearly the same degree, the white population of South Africa. The only black people who were actively receiving any kind of health care intervention by the apartheid government were urban black workers working under white households and white bosses. As such, the apartheid government worked to ensure that these white people were shielded from the spread of the disease. Through social, political, and economic means, the apartheid government actively chose to withhold health care from black South Africans affected by AIDS, and to prioritize the well-being of wealthy white South Africans.
What impact did apartheid have on the AIDS epidemic in South Africa?
There are a number of complex reasons explaining why South Africa's black population has been disproportionately affected by AIDS. The history of apartheid is undoubtedly one factor. Throughout the early part of the AIDS epidemic, apartheid was still in effect. Black areas received fewer health services and educational materials than other areas. As a result, the disease spread faster in black communities.
Even today, the legacy of apartheid fuels this problem. Most private hospitals, as well as better equipped and staffed public ones, are located in urban centers. Much of the black South African population still resides in Bantustans, far from these services. Receiving access to drugs and treatment remains difficult for much of the black population in these more rural areas. Even urban blacks have fewer good choices for health services. Hospitals in black residential neighborhoods tend to be overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded. As more and more people are infected by AIDS/HIV, this problem is compounded. The legacy of apartheid is largely to blame for this, as it concentrated populations by race and disproportionately delivered public funding and resources.
This unequal distribution of health resources is part of the long legacy of the apartheid system. So is a black population that is typically less wealthy than the white population. With fewer financial resources, many South African blacks cannot afford the private health services that are often better able to handle AIDS/HIV treatment and prevention.
References