I’ve been watching the coverage of the disaster in the States and I’ve noticed the media prefers to refer to those left behind or fleeing as “Evacuees(?!)”, which seemed odd to me because, to be honest, I think at this point they are more like refugees. They are forced away from their place of residence with no where to call home. They have no means and are fleeing a disaster area. Does that not qualify for the term?
Why the change in name? Is it Western pride or a refusal to see the situation for what it is?
Refugee has some political connotations, by which I mean it’s often used to refer to people who have to flee an area because of oppression or things along that line. Check the online definition to see what I mean. Since these people have been left homeless by a natural disaster, that’s not the case. They’re still refugees, but perhaps the term is being avoided for that reason.
Refugee refers to people who have crossed an international border. Otherwise they are usually known as ‘internally displaced’, even when the cause is political. This is the term used in countries like Peru and Colombia to describe the people affected by the internal conflicts there. Evacuees sounds like a reasonable term to describe those displaced by Katrina.
We’re the United States. ‘Refugees’ happen to other countries. ‘Disaster Victims’ happen here.
While some media sources in the US may be referring to them as refugees I’d be surprised if the majority do. I don’t think that’s in the national character.
You and the OP might have a point if there was anything to it. But there isn’t. I’ve seen “refugees” used far more often than “evacuees”.
Some examples. My local newspaper: The Dallas Morning News. Right there on the front page. This MSNBC Story in fact, uses both terms, because they are not, in fact, interchangeable. The article talks about the desperate situation of “refugees”, while using the term “evacuees” to indicate people who have been, now get this, “evacuated”.