I think it’s because, while Bush said that refugees are not Americans, Jackson said that refugees are criminals (or at least the word has a “criminal connotation”). And I think that it’s understandable to think that refugees are a problem that only happens in other countries, but I can’t understand Jackson saying, in effect, that refugees are less worthy of help because they are “criminal”. Jackson should know better.
As a Canadian following this, I can state that refugee is a perfect word. Jesse Jackson should have looked the word up in a dictionary before complaining.
Has there ever been a previous thread on the euphemistic manner in which the English language is being changed?
As George Carlin once said:
“When did the dump become the landfill?”
“When did toilet paper become bathroom tissue?”
Stop already.
I am chagrined to have had my wrist slapped by a moderator. That’s never happened before…my apologies.
Anyhoo: perhaps Bush’s logic is that (at least in his mind) to be a refugee implies that you have crossed an international boundary; therefore to be a refugee equates to being a foreigner (which implies that there’s no such thing as an internal refugee, which is probably true in little countries). In addition, all American experience with refugees have been with those who have sought refuge here from foreign countries. Carrying this flawed logic to its conclusion, to call someone a “refugee” implies that they are not Americans.
I still don’t see the racist implications, though.
I think they didn’t even bother to call them “refuees.” They called them “Oakies,” even those who weren’t from Oklahoma. And it was a derogatory term.
Oh, that’s just Jesse. He’s been a moron forever. I’ve been told one of his brothers is the brain behind him and anything smart that leaves Rev Jackson’s mouth was placed there on purpose. All I know is that the people who let him extemporize do so at the same peril as Pres Bush’s handlers because you never know what stupid thing he’s going to say.
The term usually has political connotations, but it’s a completely accurate description of the people who fled the storm and lost their homes, and it’s not racist. Bush and Jackson are both making a phony issue out of the “remember that they’re Americans” thing.
i believe the preferred term for those displaced by the hurricane is:
katrinians
(yes, i’m joking.)
Call them Survivors.
If you look it up:
Well, not quite. Unless you think of it as The War on Nature’s Terror.
So we know they’re not especially refugees.
Fine. Now lookup “exile:”
Bzzt! The country thing again.
You can try to argue connotations, but all you’ll end up doing is arguing. As has been pointed out, there’s a vast and ever-changing English speaking world out there. Now if you’d asked me to define it without a dictionary, I could see how the word might be applied to the survivors of the hurricane. It wouldn’t strike me as offensive. But it wouldn’t it be my first choice: I think evacuees would be more fitting, especially now that the whole city is being evacuated.
Here’s the thing: I hear a lot of people on the media objecting to that word, and not just Jesse. A lot of the on-the-ground interviews they’ve done with the people to whom we’re actually applying the word are troubled by its usage. They don’t like being called “refugees,” even if you think that is basically what they are. Many of them are technically destitute, but I bet they wouldn’t like hearing that, either. So my own position is that, given what these folks have been through, given what they’re going to have to go through, how big a deal is it for us to avoid using labels they find offensive or even discouraging? Yes, I know the anti-PC hoardes cry bloody murder at this idea. I know someone’s going to make a crack like “why don’t we just call them ‘drainage-challenged citizens’?” But really: it’s the English language–like can’t find another word to use? It bothers people, and there are more than enough problems to focus on without poisoning the national dialogue.
I agree with this as far as those displaced by Katrina are concerned: you should be sensitive to their feelings. The problem I see is what it discloses about attitudes to refugees, because Bush and Jackson are not saying that no one should be called a refugee. Bush (and many others) is saying that refugees are un-American, and Jackson says that being a refugee has criminal connotations. That means that, for them, refugees are less deserving of help that these evacuees (or whatever you want to call them) are.
I’m torn between distaste for political correctness, and a general feeling that people should be called what they want to be called. So I’ll have to agree with sequent. And I think this says more about Bush & Jackson’s thought processes than anything else.
I have a hard time using “refugee” in this context, though not for politically-correct reasons. In my mind (and this is purely subjective), the word conjures up images of people hitting the road, mainly on foot, and ending up in refugee camps, where they pretty much stay until hell freezes over. They are somehow in a position not to be helped by their own society.
That’s not what’s happening here. This is more of a dispersion, but certainly too weak to be called a diaspora (and yes, I’ve heard that one used).
It would be a lot easier if “refugee” just meant “someone who takes refuge,” but it doesn’t, so we’re kind of stuck.
I apologize for my outburst, jsc1953.
After viewing the video tape, I saw that you were right. I was wooshed. :smack:
Thank god for instant replay, huh? 
No problem.
The things after “as in” are examples of things refugees can be fleeing.
I’m generally willing to call people what they want to be called, as long as it doesn’t totally violate reality or common sense. But not all of these people are evacuees - that would seem to be people who were evacuated - and does not mention the unfortunate fact that many of them are stranded. So I’m torn about that one. I’d also wonder why they don’t want to be called refugees, and I think their reasons are likely similar to what Bush and Jackson have given, and those aren’t very good.
Agreed. “Refugee” means simply “someone who seeks refuge.” Yes, I suppose it has, over time, taken on the connotation of a foreigner, to some degree and to some people. That’s probably a reflection of (fortunately) how few massive, population-displacing disasters the U.S. has suffered over the years. “Evacuee” might be a decent substitute, but sounds a bit too euphemistic to me. And yes, we as a nation have more important things to do - gathering the dead, and providing medical care, shelter, food, clothing and such for the living - than arguing over the proper word for those affected by Katrina, or playing the race card.
Like I said, I personally wouldn’t have a problem being called a “refugee,” and I’ve even been displaced by a hurricane before in my life. Right, not all of them are evacuees. But by that logic, not all are refugees, either: some are still there and don’t want to go. Maybe some have left not because they were forced to but because they wanted to, because NOLA’s going to be a bummer of a place to be for a while.
Like I said: survivors works for me. Everybody who is alive survived, right? Who wouldn’t like to think of themselves as a survivor? Hell, I just survived work. But then there’s also the point that’s been made that if we run away from the term “refugee,” does it then reinforce any negative connotations that word already may or may not have? That’s a good question.
Again, I don’t see the big deal about a short-term national diction-check if it helps the survivors deal with their new situation. Normally, I hate euphemisms, but normally, they’re mostly an attempt to sanitize language, which is precisely the idea to which I object. In this case, I don’t think we need to worry about whether a change in label will sanitize the subject or mitigate in any way its reality–it’s pretty much right there, raw and bleeding in front of us.
Scene from Gone With the Wind:
SCARLETT O’HARA: [astonished] You’re leaving Atlanta?
CONFEDERATE CAVALRY TROOPER: Not leavin’, ma’am! Evacuatin’! General Sherman’s troops are closin’ in!
SO: But what about us?
CCT: Better refugee south right quick, ma’am! [touches cap] If you’ll excuse me, ma’am! [rides off]
Fiddle-dee-dee! If “refugee” is a good enough word for Scarlett O’Hara, why isn’t it good enough for Marie-Evangeline Thibodeaux?
Yes. I do think I said that the term is only accurate when applied to certain people.
I thought of this thread today because at work, I spoke to someone who differed with my use of “refugee” because I was talking about American citizens, not people in a Third World country. (He was black.) I couldn’t get into it with him, of course. But his remarks - and I think I read a few of Jesse Jackson’s thoughts this week, too - make it obvious there’s some prejudice at play here, and I don’t like the idea of letting people choose or reject words this way just because they think Americans are too good to be refugees.