From a new story, here:
What’s wrong with the word “refugees” to describe people who are forced to take refuge from Katrina?
Refugee has a certain connotation to it. In my mind (not saying it’s right, mind you), a refugee is someone fleeing a country. Usually due to political reasons.
Americans are accostomed to equating “refugee” with “foreigner”.
Because of the shading of the word, I suppose.
M-W defines refugee as:
“one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution”
So, perhaps the objection is valid.
Not disagreeing with you, monstro, but this sounds like rampant Humpty-Dumptyism: a word means what I want it to mean. I’m sorry Jesse Jackson doesn’t like to associate the people of New Orleans with the people of Darfur, but calling them something different doesn’t make it so.
I don’t get that at all. I never equated it with a foreigner. But I keep seeing all over the place, “I am not a refugee! I am an American!” And today, I got an email from someone collecting books for the “refugees” … he notes, “God how I HATE the media for that!”
I think refugee is the perfect term for someone taking refuge from the devestation caused by this horrible storm. Yet I seem to be in the minority. But, thanks for clarifying it; it was really making me wonder, too!
I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. In fact, I think “refugee” is a beneficial choice because it reminds us that these people lost their homeland and cannot go back to it for a while. That serves as a powerful reminder that will keep us focused on their plight as long as they are away.
That’s why the word’s connotation is the issue, not its meaning.
Brilliant!
Then let’s throw out all the dictionaries and concede all definitions of words to you, oh Lord and Master of the English-speaking world. What drivel.
Yours is the most egomaniacal statement I’ve ever encountered on the SDMB.
E=mc2, I guess you were whooshed by my Alice in Wonderland reference. I was quoting Humpty Dumpty, not reflecting my personal beliefs.
Twit.
Right.
Oh, right.** Liberal** is still suspended.
Can anyone think of a better one word descriptor for the “refugees” in New Orleans that doesn’t have any sort of bad or foreign connotation?
I’m not saying there isn’t one, but I’m having a hard time coming up with one.
“Evacuees.”
Ooo! Or Fugees.
Lauryn and Wyclef won’t mind.
And to make sure I’m 100% clear (as I will concede that I may not have been) my personal beliefs are completely the opposite of Humpty Dumpty’s: that words have meanings, and that one can’t twist those meanings to suit one’s agenda. So I am in disagreement with Bush & Jesse Jackson – that “refugee” is a perfectly serviceable word that accurately describes the condition of those forced to leave New Orleans. “Evacuee” doesn’t add anything, other than novelty – it doesn’t come with the supposed baggage that “refugee” brings with it.
I would bet that if one does a word search on other natural disasters – like, for instance, the tsunami – one would see “refugee” used as the word to describe the people effected. Good enough for the citizens of Aceh, it’s good enough for the citizens of New Orleans.
Where do they get the “criminal connotation” from? Do they think that refugees from other countries are criminals? It’s very worrying: is it part of a blame-the-victim mind-set, where you don’t help refugees because they might be to blame for their persecution or for the disaster that they are fleeing?
I personally have no problem with using the word refugees to describe these people because I think that it lets the public understand just how desperate their situation actually is. “Evacuees” sounds like they will be returning to their homes soon, and this is definitely NOT the case with these Gulf Coast residents. Many of them will NEVER be returning home.
Victim is another word that can be used. Thank God we have Jesse Jackson in New Orleans to help us through this terrible language crisis and encourage a spirit of National involvement. He’s been a real inspiration.
I think it should be: “Those in exhile from nature’s wrath”. It has a nice ring to it.
My god, are you serious? Don’t you know the bad connotations of “victim”?
Seriously: there are no “AIDS victims”, there are “people with AIDS”. I don’t believe this is true of other diseases.