The nineteenth-century invention of smallpox vaccination in Great Britain has been well studied for its significance in the history of medicine as well as the ways in which it exposes Victorian anxieties regarding British nationalism, rural and urban class struggles, the behaviors of women, and animal contamination. Yet inoculation against smallpox by variolation, vaccination’s predecessor and a well-established Chinese medical technique that was spread from east to west to Great Britain, remains largely understudied in modern scholarly literature. In the early 1700s, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, credited with bringing smallpox variolation to Great Britain, wrote first about the practice in the Turkish city of Adrianople and describes variolation as a “useful invention,” yet laments that, unlike the Turkish women who variolate only those in their “small neighborhoods,” British doctors would be able to “destroy this [disease] swiftly” worldwide should they adopt variolation. Examined through the lens of Edward Said’s Orientalism, techno-Orientalism, and medical Orientalism and contextualized by a comparison to British attitudes toward nineteenth century vaccination, eighteenth century smallpox variolation’s introduction to Britain from the non-British “Orient” represents an instance of reversed Orientalism, in which a technologically deficient British “Occident” must “Orientalize” itself to import the superior medical technology of variolation into Britain. In a scramble to retain technological superiority over the Chinese Orient, Britain manufactures a sense of total difference between an imagined British version of variolation and a real, non-British version of variolation. This imagination of total difference is maintained through characterizations of the non-British variolation as ancient, unsafe, and practiced by illegitimate practitioners, while the imagined British variolation is characterized as safe, heroic, and practiced by legitimate British medical doctors. The Occident’s instance of medical technological inferiority brought about by the importation of variolation from the Orient, which I propose represents an eighteenth-century instance of what I call medical techno-Orientalism, represents an expression of British anxiety over a medical technologically superior Orient—anxieties which express themselves as retaliatory attacks on the Orient and variolation as it is practiced in the Orient—and as an expression of British desire to maintain medical technological superiority over the Orient.

In a healthcare system already struggling with burnout among its professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic presented a barrage of personal and occupational strife to US healthcare workers. Structural and everyday discrimination contributed to the health inequities of people of color in the US, exacerbated by COVID-19-related racism and xenophobia. There is little research regarding the effects of COVID-19 and related and/or concurring discrimination upon minority nursing staff, despite their importance in supporting the diverse American patient population with culturally competent, tireless care amid the pandemic. This cross-sectional survey study aimed to examine 1) the relationships between discrimination, social support, resilience, and quality of life among minority nursing staff in the US during COVID-19, and 2) the differences of discrimination, social support resilience, and quality of life among minority nursing staff between different racial/ethnic groups during COVID-19. The sample (n = 514) included Black/African American (n = 161, 31.4%), Latinx/Hispanic (n = 131, 25.5%), Asian (n = 87, 17%), Native American/Alaskan Native (n = 69, 13.5%), and Pacific Islander (n = 65, 12.7%) nursing staff from 47 US states. The multiple regression results showed that witnessing discrimination was associated with a lower quality of life score, while higher social support and resilience scores were associated with higher quality of life scores across all racial groups. Furthermore, while participants from all racial groups witnessed and experienced discrimination, Hispanic/Latinx nursing staff experienced discrimination most commonly, alongside having lowest quality of life and highest resilience scores. Native American/Alaskan Native nursing staff had similarly high discrimination and low quality of life, although low resilience scores. Our findings suggest that minority nursing staff who have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates (Hispanic/Latinx, Native American/Alaskan Native) were left more vulnerable to negative effects from discrimination. Hispanic/Latinx nursing staff reported a relatively higher resilience score than all other groups, potentially attributed to the positive effects of biculturality in the workplace, however, the low average quality of life score suggests a simultaneous erosion of well-being. Compared to all other groups, Native American and Alaskan Native nursing staff’s low resilience and quality of life scores suggest a potential compounding effect of historical trauma affecting their well-being, especially in contrast to Hispanic/Latinx nursing staff. This study has broader implications for research on the lasting effects of COVID-19 on minority healthcare workers’ and communities’ well-being, especially regarding Hispanic/Latinx and Native American/Alaskan Native nursing staff.