I've been thinking a lot about a great question that came up in conversation b/ween me, @DrChelleMD, @AJohnsonHist
on a webinar hosted by @eben_kirksey. We were discussing historiography of 1918-19 influenza, racial disparities, & #COVID19 +

A strange aspect of 1918 influenza was the lower (as far as we know) morbidity and mortality amongst Black Americans - an outlier amidst other pandemics. Why? And what does this mean for the historical analysis? +

We dwelt a bit on the higher case fatality rate, and how @DrChelleMD & I explain that concept to our vulnerable patients. For example, "if you contract influenza you're more likely to die from it." +

But we then talked about segregation and the point made by us and prior historians that it may have functioned as a cordon sanitaire - unintentionally quarantining and protecting Black Americans, especially during subsequent influenza waves +

Was thinking about James Baldwin's profound point on segregation:

"Apathy & ignorance...the price we pay for segregation. That's what segregation means - that you don't know what's happening on the other side of the wall, bc you don't want to know"

It struck me - perhaps THAT'S meta-historical question. Not just undercounting, limited data, a sparse archive. It's the line of separation. It's not knowing what's happening on the other side of the wall. 100 years later, we still don't know.