Nah, that makes them sound like bowel movements.
Your bowel movements, maybe. 
They’ve been using “evacuees” on Atlanta TV stations since Jesse made the comments, and it helps distinguish the recent New Orleans population from the Somali refugees, for example.
As in ‘evacuate one’s bowels’.
I dunno. The people who left before the storm were evacuees while the peole left stranded by the storm were refugees.
Evacuate connotates (to me?) that there was a choice involved. You evacuate a building during a bomb scare, but you are a refugee from that building if it was your apartment and it blew up. “Refuge” has a connotation of having to flee.
I guess what I’m saying is that “refuge” seems like the more appropriate word, but if it has some sort of bad connotation that I’m not aware of, then “evacuee” isn’t terrible. Seems like much ado about nothing.
I’m quite familiar with evacuate and defecate, Johnny. I use shit myself.
Displaced Americans? (DA)
Hurricane Survivors? (HS)
Residents of the Former New Orleans? (RFNO)
Personally, I say ‘defecate’.
Anyway, mine was a drive-by post playing on the word. Didn’t mean to cause an argument.
I’ve been calling some of them the “dome people”. It has a certain apocalyptic sci-fi connotation.
Pssst. :: Points to forum name ::
Another news report on this, here.
It seems to me that the racism lies with those who associate the word solely with troublesome foreigners, and demand a different word for Americans in a similar situation.
The papers here have all been using the term “refugees”. I haven’t seen any specific justification for the term. I’ve assumed it’s because the people have been forced to flee their homes and have no realistic expectation of returning in the short to medium term, if ever.
Being in San Antonio, I have seen and talked to quite a few Katrina survivors. They have indicated that they would like to be refered to using the unpronouncable symbol ~ or “People from the City Formerly Known as New Orleans.”
In all seriousness, there are more important things to worry about. We have thousands of people with no possessions, no jobs, and no homes. Sometimes Jesse Jackson distracts people. The mere fact that people are spending time discussing Jesse Jackson’s comments, rather than discussing other topics, seems to happen when an important national issue surfaces.
Wait a minute, I am engaging in this conversation…I gotta stop! :smack:
Moderator’s Notes:
E = mc², you need to cool it a bit. This is Great Debates, not the Pit.
On the other hand, jsc1953, personal insults are definitely against the rules.
Askia, making gratuitous swipes at posters who haven’t even posted in the thread is rather jerkish. Doing so against posters who are, as you point out, suspended and thus cannot reply, is doubly so. Don’t do this again.
A word with a criminal connotation would be “fugitive.”
I just don’t see the racist connotation of “refugee.” The ethnic Albanians fleeing Kosovo for Macedonia – refugees, white. Yes, in the US we are usually not so unfortunate as to face political or natural disasters that create large numbers of refugees. Lately. But we had large numbers of refugees from the Dust Bowl in the thirties. Granted, they weren’t all that welcome in California and being called a refugee wasn’t a compliment.
Isn’t Jackson saying “they’re Americans, not refugees” a way of saying that non-American refugees are a little less than human?
I agree that refugee carries an appropriate connotation of the desparateness and long term nature of the condition most of these people face. And that evacuee sounds both artificial and temporary.
Actually, I was surprised to learn that refugee can mean “criminal”; the Oxford English Dictionary gives definition 1.b. of the word to be “A runaway; a fugitive from justice, etc.”, although it notes the definition to be “rare”. Definition 1.a. is given as “One who, owing to religious persecution or political troubles, seeks refuge in a foreign country; orig. applied to the French Huguenots who came to England after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685.” Definition 1.d. is “Someone driven from his home by war or the fear of attack or persecution; a displaced person.” (Definition 1.c. relates to migratory birds, and is labelled obsolete and rare.) The connection with criminality is also found in definition 2, “U.S. A name given, esp. in New York State, to parties of marauders in the American revolutionary war who claimed British protection” (labeled as obsolete except in a historical context).
More current definitions lack any mention of criminality, although they still don’t seem to refer to those seeking refuge specifically from a natural as opposed to an artificial disaster.
As a descendant of refugees from other lands, I can’t say I find the word disturbing at all. It’s part of my heritage.
That said - for a long time, centuries in fact, those of African descent have been marginalized and treated as not good enough, not part of us. So I think they may be a little more sensitive about citizenship and belonging than some of the rest of us. And it does seem it’s that ethnicity of New Orleanian that is expressing this view.
Personally, given what these folks have been through, if they object to “refugee” I have no problems calling them something else if it would avoid futher pain and/or argument. I dunno - maybe for some of them it’s a way of exerting some small control over their lives.
Me, I think “survivor” is a good choice - they did survive a catastrophe, and such a label may help them going forward, in their own minds.
Of course it’s jerkish behavior: you can’t crack on someone without being a jerk, even if you like them. I started to type, “Oddly, I wish he were back already. I’d love to read his take on things.” Even when he pisses me the hell off I admit I loo-ooo-ove that guy’s style. 
Consider me reprimanded, if only for the wrong reasons, but I don’t regret a wor.
“…word.”
Agreeing with yourself is bad form, Askia.
Why is Jackson taking all the heat in this thread? Bush also said “refugee” was an inappropriate term. It’s right there in the OP.