Refugees or Evacuees?

Patrice Butler
September 3 2005, 1:16PM

Please do not be dooped into thinking that language is not political. What we call a people dictates how we view and treat them. The United Nations has an entire division of their organization dedicated to REFUGEES. It is political! I do not want to leave how a people are view and treated in the hands of the largely white media. How are you a refugee after loosing everything in your state and going next door to another state? They were not called refugees until they took them to another state. Now after the comments being made against that term they send Jeff Koinange in to justify the use of the word as he describes the conditions. Yes, those are the conditions. They are to be expected in this disaster zone, not where you relocate your US citizens.

Yes, we know the literal definition of many words, but how we use those words are strategic and political (or at least they should be). Never let someone else label and define you!
Peace to all!

"Refugee From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A refugee is a person seeking refuge (or asylum) in another country in order to escape persecution. Those who seek refugee status are sometimes known as asylum seekers and the practice of accepting such refugees is that of offering political asylum. The most common asylum claims are based upon political and religious grounds. The term has also been informally used to describe those fleeing natural disasters, such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Under the 1951 Convention on Refugees and 1967 Protocol, a nation must grant asylum to refugees and cannot forcibly return a refugee to their nation of origin. However, many nations routinely ignore this treaty. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is dedicated to protecting the rights and wellbeing of refugees. As of 31 December 2004, the agency reported a total of 9,236,500 official refugees (excluding an additional 4 million Palestinian refugees) [1].

Globally, about 16 countries (Australia, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States [2]) regularly accept quota refugees from places such as refugee camps. Usually these are people who have escaped war. In recent years, most quota refugees have come from Iran and Iraq, which have been in various wars and revolutions, and the former Yugoslavia, due to the Yugoslav wars."

cmoney
September 3 2005, 3:49PM

The white media has repeatedly used loaded words to describe the poor victims of this disaster. "Refugee" is one of them. As is "looter". As is "third world". Fanatical newshounds in airconditioned news studios seemed obsessed with getting the the Governor of La. to issue a "shoot to kill" order for looters. Would they say the same for whites "foraging" for or "finding" food? Of course not! Since when is theft a capital crime? When did property attain greater value than the life of a starving person? I was glad to hear the governor sharply rebuke one of those stupid media hounds on Friday morning when she flat out stated that she had not issued a shoot to kill order for looters and even went on to say that people have to do what they have to do to survive. It is difficult to pin the incompetent response of the government to this disaster solely on race (there was enough stupidity to go around), but the use of the term "refugee" is a loaded, offensive term when it is never applied to whites. Whites are "displaced", "homeless", "victims", "casualties". Blacks in the same situation are "third world" "refugees" who "loot", "rape, and aare "violent". Words have power. Red Cross rescuers sat outside the city of New Orleans as thousands starved and suffered because they were "afraid" and needed "security" while at the same time Jesse Jackson drove several buses into the heart of the suffering and rescued hundreds of people. CNN, MSNBC and even Fox reporters drove around without fear and, yet the Red Cross and even the Army was afraid to go into the heart of a Black city where people were suffering. If it was so unsafe, then how did all of those reporters get around unmolested? They knew the truth, even if they didn't report it.

Patrice Butler
September 3 2005, 3:56PM

cmoney, Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen!!!!!!! Well stated! Very well Stated!

cmoney
September 3 2005, 4:06PM

I'm still pissed. To further illustrate the effect of word choice, even of the words are technically correct, how would you feel if the media described the victims of this disaster as "primates"? We are all primates (apes, monkeys, humans, etc.). But do you describe your loved ones, fellow Americans as primates? Of course not. You call them people. We need to watch what we say and what is said about us and never assume that the choice of language is innocent when it comes from the likes of Fox news.

Keith Boykin
September 3 2005, 6:18PM

I agree with almost eveything that has been said. However, I still have not seen the term "refugee" applied only to blacks or only to the people of New Orleans. If it were (or if it already is and I just don't know about it), that would be a clear problem.

Benin Dakar
September 3 2005, 9:25PM

Language Matters: Do not call fellow Americans Citizens “Refugees”

If you simply go to any dictionary or thesaurus one will see that the word “refugee” (being used a lot, especially on the cable news channels in reference to the masses of Americans hurt by Hurricane Katrina) means a person in exile, immigrant, migrant, or expatriate.

The hurting and ignored people in the Gulf States that have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina and are having a second more potent and troubling devastation by the tepid response of President Bush, the Congress, FEMA, Homeland Security, and a plethora of other impotent federal agencies are AMERICAN CITIZENS.

All of the poor black and white people left behind, all of the sick and infirm people left behind, and all of the caregivers that chose to stay behind to care for the poor and the sick and the infirm are NOT REFUGEES, but they are AMERICAN CITIZENS entitled to every right and privilege of any other American citizen throughout America and the world.

And these fellow Americans are being failed even by the language of how we address them in their greatest hour of need. We speak of people who are our American kin with a name that is meant to refer to those people who are stateless and homeless due to war.

The people of the Gulf Coast have a country and belong to the strongest and greatest nation that has ever existed (or so the hype goes) and are entitled to be referred to by a name that keeps their American identity in tact and their dignity.

Let us cease calling our fellow Americans reeling from Katrina and its aftermath "refugees" and instead call them "fellow Americans in need of our immediate support".

Patrice Butler
September 3 2005, 10:04PM

Regardless of race, no American citizen should be referred to as a "refugee" in their own country! The New Orleans catastrophe has dominated the media worldwide. The faces of the New Orleans catastrophe are overwhelmingly African-American faces. Would a sea of white faces prompt one to use the term refugee to describe displace and homeless US citizens? I seriously doubt it. However, that is my personal opinion.

a BrOtHa NaMeD sHaRiF
September 3 2005, 11:19PM

CMONEY YOU ARE A 100% DAMN CORRECT! Like Patrice Butler stated, AMEN. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!

Juan
September 3 2005, 11:59PM

In the very loose definition of the word refugee there is no problem with its usage. The word basically means one who leaves his/her country as a result of war or natural disaster. If you equate country with home (as in this case, New Orleans) then the definition applies. On another front, and I have not confirmed this, I was told by terming these people "refugees" there are funds that are immediately available that have been allocated and would otherwise go unused that can be tapped in this case.

But instead of debating what is and what isn't, let's all do our part to help those we can. I am "adopting" three Xavier students who are coming to DC to Howard University and would hope that we all will do our part no matter how small.

Peace

Keith R.
September 4 2005, 1:22AM

Keith I could not agree with you more. A refugee is a refugee - period. And all of the people who have lost their homes in LA, MS, and AL and gone to various refugee camps such as the Superdome are straight up refugees. The definition of refugee DOES NOT necessitate that someone always has to be escaping to another country - at least in my dictionary. So there is nothing that states that the word cannot be applied to those displaced within their own country. And the media has clearly used it in LA, AL, and MS indiscriminate of race. In fact calling these people what they really are probably helped them to get the help they needed more quickly than if they had been called something 'prettier' like evacuees. And that's because people know that a refugee is in dire straights and that's exactly what these people are facing. I think racism has played a role in how other aspects of the disaster have been reported but not in this respect. And by the way Keith you did an excellent job in discussing the Down Low on Tony Brown's journal. Anyone who did not see this show should see it if at all possible. Keith's presentation was the best I've ever seen on this topic.

Sparky
September 4 2005, 12:49PM

These poor unfortunate people are not, alas, refugees. They don't meet the definition of the word. Being driven from your home due to a natural disaster isn't part of the causes of refugee-ism, to coin a word. My wife and I had a discussion about this last night, and she was adamant that they were refugees. i said not. i just spent 30 minutes looking up the definition of the word, and it turned out I was right - they aren't refugees.

Read -

At Freesearch -
refugee noun {C}
a person who has escaped from their own country for political, religious or economic reasons or because of a war:
- Thousands of refugees fled across the border.

INS/USCIS -

Refugee

Any person who is outside his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Persecution or the fear thereof must be based on the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. People with no nationality must generally be outside their country of last habitual residence to qualify as a refugee. Refugees are subject to ceilings by geographic area set annually by the President in consultation with Congress and are eligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident status after one year of continuous presence in the United States.

American Heritage Dictionary -

: an individual seeking refuge or asylum; especially : an individual who has left his or her native country and is unwilling or unable to return to it because of persecution or fear of persecution (as because of race, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion)

Merriam-Webster -

: one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution

So I have a hard time buying in to the media and others using the word refugee to describe these folks. It seems like just another way to take a reflexive jab at GWB to me.

Ade
September 4 2005, 1:00PM

The people suffering from Katrina's fury are best described as "internally displaced persons" (IDP). This term was coined in the humanitarian relief circles in the last decade to describe people who have fled their homes, but unlike "refugees", did not cross international borders.

Beyond terminologies, what is most worrisome is the racial and class undertone of this tragedy. Scientists predicted this devastation as far back as 2001. Why was nothing done to prevent it? When it happened, why did it take so long to respond adequately? Were this to happen in NYC, Los Angeles, or some upperclass neighborhood in Connecticut or Massachusetts, would the response have been the same? I think not. The citizens of New Orleans are predominantly black and poor, so I guess they don’t matter.

I cannot but remember the Bush administration’s response to the hurricanes in Florida last year. The response was massive and immediate, but the devastation is nowhere near what we are seeing in New Orleans. Perhaps, because we’re not in an election year and New Orleans votes don’t matter, its citizens are expendable. It is all very sad.

It is equally appalling that House Speaker Dennis Hastert thinks (and dares to vocalize it) New Orleans is not worth rebuilding. If he’s so concerned about saving money, then he should not have voted to spend $223 million to build a bridge for a town of 50 people in Alaska. Speaker Hastert’s comment is the most irresponsible on this disaster yet.

I look at the images on television and I see parallels with images we see of Africa and Africans in the media: images of poverty, war, desperation, and hopelessness. I find those images dehumanizing, and have always believed they don’t help any cause other than to perpetuate stereotypes about Africa and its people. In the same vein, the images we’re seeing of New Orleans only perpetuate stereotypes about blacks in America. People don’t have to be dehumanized in order to draw compassion for them.

The extent of this preventable tragedy is still folding.

Bill Miller
September 4 2005, 1:18PM

I am an uninvited white interloper on your blog, just amazed at the length your posters will go to twist everything to fit their world view, which is not based on any reality. You are absurdly arguing about whether there is any racial content to the word refugee. You convince yourself illogically that that Bush's slowness to respond appropriately to something of this magnitude is a race issue instead of general incompetence and lack of imagination, in spite of all the evidence that he shows the same lack of imagination in on every critical issue, and this is just typical. You also conveniently ignore the fact that the black mayor of New Orleans and the Democratic governor of LA were just as incompetent and lacking in imagination; somehow they were not racially motivated, that does not fit your preconceived world view. You ignore the fact that almost all of the rescuers who were doing their best to rescue mostly black people from drowning, and the majority of people offering "refuge" for hurricane victims are white, and all you can talk about is that the failure of the governments (local,state and federal) to have enough sense to drop food and water to the people who were not drowning and merely needed to be sustained was a race issue of the federal government and Bush in particular, instead of a competence issue of your black city government as well as of the state and federal governments. How convenient for your world view.

Maraboudoktorn
September 4 2005, 1:26PM

I'm sort of "iffy" about the whole affair. Initially, I applauded Kanye for being so blunt and laying the harsh realities of racism out there in its most unabashed form, but at the same time, it was a comment made out of emotions and a lot of things were missing.

The victims of Hurricane Katrina were black -- true -- but they were also POOR, very poor. Most of the folks living in Orleans Parish are just one or two paychecks from being homeless. And as you saw live on your TV sets, that actually became a reality.

Folks on Section 8, disability, food stamps, etc. are now seen as "refugees" by American society. If you don't pull yourself up by your own britches and individual will, you may as well die. That's the rationale of the American government and how they're going about handling the hordes of evacuees.

Kanye: you said what many oppressed peoples feel the world over, but at the same time us black people need to help our own more.

Personally, where is the huge black middle class in all of this? Most of the folks affected by Katrina were not of the black middle class. So tell me, what has the black middle class community of surrounding New Orleans (and nationwide) done to help this cause? Our people are the main ones being affected, but I don't see no one in the black community opening doors.

Where are the pastors of those huge mega-churches in the South like T.D. Jakes and Creflo Dollar? Why aren't they opening their opulent multi-room mansions to these folks? Those cushioned pews would be a helluva lot better than that sweaty Superdome.

Where are the black middle class folks? Why aren't we giving to the Red Cross in unprecendented numbers or volunteering? I just see a bunch of white volunteers flash on my screen. Are we too busy protecting our own necks to help another out? I really feel like this is the case.

Now, I won't totally say we aren't helping because I do think the media plays a huge role in how we perceive our immediate world. In all of the news coverage, I rarely see images of blacks rescuing other blacks. I don't know if that's the media's problem of disproportionate coverage: are they not showing the images because there are so many more of white helping the cause or are blacks helping less?

I heard Condoleezza Rice was out shopping around Day 2 or 3 of the devastation...

Kelly
September 4 2005, 2:29PM

Greetings... I e-mailed a News room regarding the word "refugee" and this is what he e-mailed me back... wondering what your thoughts were:

Thanks for your email to News Channel 8.

We have reviewed this question quite a bit in our newsroom. The use of the term refugee has come mainly from the people in the path of devastation from Hurricane Katrina. They have referred to themselves by this term given that they were not evacuated from the oncoming storm. Given that one definition of the word would be correct in this sense, we trust that you would understand that it simply would not be appropriate for us to change the term, or our accurate portrayal of the conditions that exist in the hardest hit areas, to suit anyone's particular sensibilities.

Thank your for taking the time to share your feedback with us and for watching News Channel 8.

Sincerely,
Kirk Varner
Vice President and Director of News
WTNH/WCTX Television

On Sep 2, 2005, at 11:24 PM, wrote:

EmailTo: wtnh@wtnh.com,publicwtnh@wtnh.com
Telephone: 8605856080
FormName: News Comments
Street Address: 136 Rhoda Lane
Name: Kelly
Subject: Hurricane Katrina
EmailAddress: kellystinchon@hotmail.com
City: Bristol
State: CT
Zip Code: 06010
Comments: Hi,
I have been watching the numerous news broadcasts on the devastating
disaster Katrina, and have been disheartened by the way the press has
portrayed the victims of the storm. I am asking you to please stop calling
the evacuees "refugees" as these evacuees are tax- paying American
citizens. The New Orleans residents have been stripped of their homes,
belongings, family members and in some cases health and sanity, but let's
not strip them of their citizenship.
Much thanks,
Kelly

Darryl
September 4 2005, 2:37PM

I agree that the term,(refugee), being misused by the mainstream media is wrong. I have researched the word in several reference resources and each resource states that a refugee is a person thats flees his or her country, not state in their native country.

Michael
September 4 2005, 6:39PM

It is true, they are not refugees as we have come to know the term. However, if you look at the conditions they are living in and around minus the urban wear and the convention center. You have the appearance of a true refugee.

John Ortiz
September 4 2005, 9:07PM

This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Refugee status at that time was accorded only if the migrant's departure was involuntary and asylum was sought in another country. In 1938 the definition of refugee was expanded to include persons with a well-founded fear of persecution because of ethnicity, religion, nationality, group membership, or political opinion. Later the definition was expanded again to include persons who have fled from their homes to other places in their own countries.

Will
September 5 2005, 1:43AM

Like many, I was first disturbed to hear the news media use the term "refugee" to describe the mostly poor, black population evacuting the devestation in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. However, it dawned on me that a refugee is one who is seeking refuge - in other words, seeking safety from trouble, and that's what those in the Gulf Coast area are trying to do.

jazzi
September 5 2005, 10:29AM

I can't imagine that it would matter to the folks in New Orleans at this time whether we called them refugees or anything else. I don't understand how it is relevant to whats going on there. They have have just lived through one of the most horrific natural disasters of our time. They've lost EVERYTHING! For a lot of them, that would also include their lives. Let's focus on that instead of majoring on minors, ok?

Generally, when we as Americans think or hear the word "refugee", we think of far away, distant pplaces where the language & customs & culture are different. Fact is anyone, from anywhere, at any time can be a refugee. Without all the ridiculous political connotations, it simply means one who's seeking refuge. And I think we all can agree that those people are in serious need of refuge.

cmoney
September 5 2005, 10:48AM

Finally, the news media is starting to respond to the insensitivity of calling these people refugees. As of Monday, many are now using the term "evacuee". Gen. Honore', who is in charge of the relief effort, even made the comment that these people are citizens and not refugees. As for what difference it makes--it makes a difference in how the world responds. Of course, people who are fighting for their lives are not blogging and watching CNN. The terminology used affects us, which in turn, affects them. I have made my contributions to the relief effort. I wonder if our "white interloper" Bill Miller (a curious choice of words in itself) has contributed anything other than a defense of the wonderful virtues of white people.

Mark
September 5 2005, 8:50PM

Keith,

"Refugee" is not the correct word.

In regard to the definition you referenced:
"...looked up the word in the dictionary and it describes a refugee as "one that flees,""

Later you quote the entire definition:
"..A more detailed definition from the dictionary described a refugee as a person who flees, "especially to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution.""

The second isn't actually a "more detailed definition". It IS the definition. The word "especially" actually means "in particular" or "distinctively". This specifies the circumstances of the act of fleeing. The way you've referenced it would read "as in" instead of "in particular". You cannot separate out the first part of the definition that is written prior to the word "especially."

A refugee is not merely "one who flees". There are special (or more accurately: especial) circumstances for one in flight that makes them a refugee.

Try to find another word for a "flee-er" from the Katrina New Orleans disaster.

Maybe there isn't a single word you can use for those who are suffering from this disaster....it's certainly not "refugee".

michaeliv
September 5 2005, 8:55PM

I just thought it was one that looks for refuge.... is that not what the people of New Orleans are doing?

Mark
September 5 2005, 9:01PM

While I don't think the word "refugee" is racist, there seem to be a lot of people who are taking it that way in this circumstance. So, like all the other "politically correct" crap we have to put up with, I think this should be added to that list of "no-no" comments that some find offensive. Defense of the word is offensive at this point.

If the word refugee is going to be stretched this way, then every trip from your own home can then entitle you to be called a "refugee". Think about it. A trip to the grocery store makes you a refugee from your food-needing home, a vacation to Hawaii makes you a refugee from your everyday life, heck, it can even be applied to an area, such as "getting out of the car to put gas in it" would make you a refugee from being inside the car where you couldn't reach the pump. Silly. It becomes meaningless.

Oh, and Kirk Varner, just because some of the folks who are fleeing the path of devastation from Hurricane Katrina have referred to themselves as "refugees" doesn't mean it's a suitable description. It's wrong, period. And you are wrong to use it.

I think the News is using the word just to try and provide more dramatic effect, as if this situation needed it. The News has become so extreme, overdone and so overstated that I'm hard pressed to try and separate out what is real from what is being totally exaggerated any more.

Mark
September 5 2005, 9:13PM

That's a great distinction, michaeliv, "one that looks for refuge" is NOT a "refugee" You can look for refuge without being a refugee. It's confusing because of the similarity of the words and a seemingly common goal - refuge.

A refugee is looking for refuge from very specific circumstances. Looking for refuge can fall under many different and distinctive reasons. For instance, seeking shelter - or refuge from a storm is quite different that someone seeking refuge from religious persecution in another country. How does one distinguish those from each other if they are both "refugees".

The real point is that it offends many, and even if it is accurate, it shouldn't be used until we can all agree it's a good word. Let me tell you, I have a few choice words that I'd like to use...but I can't because they'd offend certain people - even if the word itself is accurate...:)

Mark
September 5 2005, 9:17PM

Let me add a word to my previous post, I didn't realize I'd left out the key word: "necessarily"

:-)

That's a great distinction, michaeliv, "one that looks for refuge" is NOT necessarily a "refugee" You can look for refuge without being a refugee. It's confusing because of the similarity of the words and a seemingly common goal - refuge.

Kyeorda
September 5 2005, 10:28PM

I have a few things to say about the issues that have been brought up and how I feel about the situation in New Orleans:
#1. First in regards to a post by Bill Miller, if you feel like a "white interloper" that's your issue. There is no where on this website that says for blacks only.

#2. Bush does not care about Black America. But neither does any politicians. They only pretend to care to get us to vote for them and then conveniently forget about the promises they make. Or they pray on our ignorance, fear, hatred, and bigotry to gain our vote (e.g., homophobia, but that's a different topic).

#3 Refugee by definition refers to a person who has fled there home or country usually because of political or religious persecution. However, the word technically can be used for the victims of Katrina. I would also like to say the term has been used in the past to describe victims of natural disasters: most recently the victims of the tsunami in December. I think we are all getting caught up in technicalities instead of the real issues: why it took so damn long for the government to respond and the media's portrayal of blacks in New Orleans which brings me to number 4.

#4 The government didn't fix the levees because campaigning to fix the levees won’t get you elected. Money is power and the poor and mainly black of New Orleans don't have the money. If they had the influence, I’m sure this would have been fixed a long time ago. Also, the rich that wanted the levees fixed could not convince the government this was important because once again this is not an issue that will get and keep you elected. In addition I want to know why the mayor or governor or president of the USA didn't send busses TO MOVE THESE PEOPLE OUT. And how could they not know that people were in the convention center. 20,000 people don't all get the same idea to take refuge at one spot. Furthermore, if no one knew how the hell did they get in?

#5 The media needs to stop reinforcing the stereotype that blacks are dangerous and violent and we need to hold them accountable. I am currently a graduate student at Northwestern University and am one of the 10 minority students in a PhD program of 200. I have constantly heard over the last couple of days how "they" are animals and out of control and "they" are shooting and looting. I'm not denying these things aren't happening, but the media is acting like all the black people in the city have gone crazy (CNN excluded since they had the fairest coverage I observed), meanwhile we see nice and orderly lines of whites formed in Mississippi and Alabama. If Chicago was under water all hell would break loose. There are always going to be people who are going to try and take advantage of a horrible situation. I'm quite sure there would be some blacks breaking into stores trying to get clothes and tv’s, but there would be whites, asians, and latinos right beside them.

#6 The government seemed more concern about protecting the properties of the rich, instead of the lives of the poor.

My fiancé says I’m a little off topic, but I don’t care. And on that note I rest.

Mark
September 5 2005, 11:20PM

kyeorda,

You actually validate the entire point of the question about utilizing the term "refugee" in reference to the Katrina-displaced with this very comment:

"the media's portrayal of blacks in New Orleans which brings me to number 4."

The media's portrayal of these folks by calling them "refugees" further distances the black victims of Katrina from mainstream or "white" America. As if they weren't Americans. Or really lived here. That's the point.

Plus, nobody's missing all the other points you raise by commenting on this "technicality." We're all concerned about that too.

And, you're right, the site didn't say "for blacks only" .... until you wrote it...

J. Wever
September 6 2005, 4:41AM

I stumbled upon this blog piece for the same reason it was writtin: attempting to ascertain the proper definintion of the term 'refugee' and whether the American media was incorrectly labeling the Katrina victims as such.

After researching online as well as consulting several dictionaries, it occured to me that we're dealing with the evolution of the meaning rather than its original definition. "Refugee" is the correct term to identify displaced persons in this instance as 'environmental disaster' can be one of the causes for evacuation or refuge seeking. One part of the definition I encountered elsewhere (as well as here) was 'especially from foreign countries,' that doesn't exclude seeking refuge in one's native land. Erego, I would suppose these victims could be correctly labeled as refugees.

I also agree with Patrice who said the term is political. It is what we have come to know. There are many words in the English language which we have come to associate with specific circumstances.

I didn't think I'd comment on the matter of race, but in reading other postings I wanted to say it hadn't occured to me that 'refugee' would be interpreted as a racial divider placing emphasis on the distinction between the races. I suppose I can see that side of the argument as well, however I suspect demographics and hardest hit areas, as well as ability to seek refuge without the hinderance of poverty, plays a role in this instance.

That said, I do hope we get this sorted out before the rest of the world figures out that we seem to excel at finger pointing rather than tending to our own deficiencies.

Kenneth Winfrey
September 6 2005, 6:14AM

I thought the article written here was very well-balanced. On one hand, I agree that we have come to use the term "refugee" describing people who have fled entire nations, not hurricane-damaged cities. On the other hand, I agree with Keith, I hadn't seen the term used only to describe Black people, or in any specific ethnic context...that is until today. Greta Van Sustren, a Fox news reporter, covered events taking place at a Houston facility. A Black man being interviewed was very deliberate in stating that he was glad that he could participate in helping those that he did "not see as 'refugees,' but quite frankly, our brothers and sisters." It was a beautiful sentiment because you could tell that he was proud to be of service, and wanted to take every opportunity to honor those that had survived such horrific circumstances.

Beyond all that, I still can't help but consider the possible ethnocentric implications around language here. I think some of us have missed an interesting point in paragraph 5. I think I got it though... If the term "refugee" is somehow disparaging because it has been used to describe non-Americans, the offense must be rooted in the idea that non-Americans are somehow a lesser class of people. That is, in fact, an unhealthy imperialistic xenophobic notion--of course, I realize that such an idea might have come about in order to rationalize the delay in getting help to a clearly mostly Black group of people. I think the other overlooked point is that "refugee" doesn't have to be a disparaging term, as we've seen with all the definitions offered here. However, the term "primate" is generally used to refer to lesser forms of life, and frequently as an insult (...ironically, also by white supremacists to describe Black people specifically).

To me, "evacuee" would imply that they might be able to return in much the same way that during a bomb threat, people "evacuate" a building, possibly until it's safe to return. Most of those who have "fled" New Orleans probably won't be able to return in such short term. Moreover, I don't think the term "refugee" had anything to do with the delays. The whole plethora of other reasons for this are already being discussed, including failures to heed years of warnings, a lack of leadership and organization, and even fear. I was more disturbed by the use of the term "looter" and the way that situation was portrayed. It clearly influenced those who delayed entering the city in fear of so-called "thugs" and "animals."

I don't like to make such tactless "white interlopers" feel affirmed in making such bold commentary on the failure of Black leadership, per se because it always seems unlikely [in fact, damned-near impossible] that they can even begin to appreciate the context in which Black leadership and constituencies operate. Yet, I can't help but acknowledge some validity in his point. This was clearly a failure on ALL levels of government. I'm sure the elected officials of the affected areas are all loosing sleep in echoes of "coulda shoulda woulda" this or that, etc. From the levees to the local shelters, the regional infrastructure was clearly insufficient in terms of both human and physical resources. I also agree that we should be careful about how much time and consideration we put into these kinds of semantic arguments without sufficient analysis to really show that there is a concrete problem. Without a well-defined problem, there can be no well-defined solution. Those of you who know my writing know that I rarely embrace semantic arguments for this reason. It is my belief that simply making certain words off-limits rarely solves the problems to which they refer anyway.

Let me reiterate that I am more disturbed that the mostly Black crowds were referred to as "looters," as whites were "finding" things. They had been portrayed as people to be feared, not helped. These terms seemed to have a much greater impact on the response level than the terms "refugee" or "evacuee." In my opinion, that's the more worthy issue. I'd hate to think that, under circumstances like these, I could actually die because of someone's phobias.

nina
September 6 2005, 8:59AM

I was surprised at the disdain many have for the word. For me, it has no negative connotations. A lot of people keep saying American citizens cannot be refugees. The meaning of the word as "one who flees trouble, who seeks refuge" seems to be lost on many of us.
I have heard many say that its being used to slight blacks somehow, I dont find the word insulting so I wouldnt read it as a slight. Additionally, I googled and the term was used for many other storms, its not being used exclusively for black storm victims.

I think one reason it isnt being used a much for MS victims is because the storm hit and passed. THe people are no longer fleeing. But in NOLA people were, for at least a week, fleeing the storm then the flood then the horrible conditions of the city and seeking refuge elsewhere.

mjpf
September 6 2005, 10:57AM

You can find the original meaning of many words that do not agree with CURRENT usage. In current usage, a refugee refers to a person taking refuge in another country. It is strange for the media to have begun using this term and I believe it was because the images remind us of refugee scenes we have seen before elsewhere. It was forgooten somehow that we were talking about citizens of this country and the reason for the anger is justified because it is implying (because of the word is truly used) that these people are different from the rest of us. If you doubt it, look at reports of "evacuees" from Mt St Helen's etc to see what language they were using then.
It is not that "refugee" is in itself a dreogatory term as someone here mentioned but that you are excluding a group of people by refering them as such when they belong to THIS country.

Looking up definitions is pointless when we all know how we use this word in language. It's like using the term "land" which we are used to seeing in terms of an area of ground - not in a more florid "the land from which I come" - we just don't talk that way and everyone knows it. The media are just trying to justify themselves.

KeithR
September 6 2005, 3:15PM

At the risk of beating a dead horse it should be stated that victims of last December's tsunami were uniformly called refugees by everyone, even though most of them were displaced to other locations within their own countries. So much for the idea that current usage of the word refugee limits it to people leaving their countries. The disdain that some Americans have for the term refugee is truly amazing considering the fact that the none of the word's various definitions suggest that it can be used as a slur. Hmmmm. One wonders how some Americans came to see the word refugee in such a negative light? Also I agree with Kenneth (and Keith who originally posted on this topic) that use of the word looter has had a much more damaging effect than use of the word refugee. I heard a white woman who had escaped a New Orleans hotel describe on CNN how a doctor in her group had "procured" antibiotics from a nearby Walgreens for her and others to take before they waded from their hotel through germ filled waters to rescue boats! But if some poor people who weren't doctors had done the same thing what would it have been called? L - O - O - T - I - N - G. I know some folks have grabbed TV's and other stuff not necessary for survival but I suspect most "looters" were simply looking for food, shelter and floatable objects to save their lives.

Kai Chang
September 9 2005, 5:05AM

One of the sad lessons I've learned during the Katrina tragedy is that Americans regard the term "refugee" as a dirty word. Over the past week I've heard over and over again, "These people are not refugees, they are displaced American citizens."

According to my American Heritage Dictionary, a refugee is "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war". Replace "war" with "natural disaster", and it seems to me that this definition is aptly applied to people fleeing floodwaters. However, it turns out that in the ears of many Americans, the word "refugee" connotes lesser people, dirty people, Third World people who don't deserve human rights.

It saddens me to realize that even under these dire circumstances, dispossessed Americans feel compelled to establish a classist superiority over displaced citizens in the Third World — as though refugees in Africa or Asia are undeserving of high-quality assistance and fair, dignified treatment.

No wonder the United States is the stingiest developed country in the world when it comes to foreign aid.

Frankly, this entire discussion strikes me as yet another example of American exceptionalism and nationalist prejudice. By insisting that Americans fleeing floodwaters are "evacuees" or "displaced citizens", while Palestinians fleeing foreign invasion and Sri Lankans fleeing tsunamis and Sudanese fleeing civil war are "refugees", American journalists, politicians, and citizens are establishing an international caste system for human rights.

So the next time I hear an American describe a Palestinian or Sri Lankan or Sudanese or other non-American as a "refugee", I'll know that what they're really saying: "Don't bother sending money to the Red Cross or OxFam; they're just refugees."

David Burrow
September 10 2005, 9:21PM

"Looting" is a rather judgmental word, but I really don't think anyone in the media intended offense by using the term "refugee" in the context of those who survived Katrina. Quite the opposite, I think the use called attention to the fact that those in the evacuation centers were people in extraordinary need.

While some may limit the term to international contexts, using the term for those forced from their homes in America is certainly not new with this hurricane, nor has it been limited to blacks. The mostly white people who migrated from the Midwest to California in the Dust Bowl have often been described by many as refugees. The term was used nearly fifteen years ago for both black and white people displaced by Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina, and more recently it has been applied to those made homeless by flooding in mostly white cities like Des Moines and Fargo. "Refugee" has even been used for survivors of more modest disasters, such as a fire that destroyed an apartment building.

The term has been applied to whites as well as blacks in the context of Katrina as well. Many whites who left before the hurricane hit but cannot return home have been so described. Certainly it has been applied more often to blacks, but that may well be just because the majority of those who are affected by this disaster are black.

I personally hope that when Americans hear this word in references to our own people it will drive home the fact that there are people in great need right here. It's so easy for most Americans to think that both disasters and poverty only happen someplace else. Perhaps this will wake some people up to the problems we have here at home. I think the greatest good that could come out of this tragedy would be for our country to work to solve the underlying problems--poltiical, racial, economic, and environmental--that led to it.

Daniel
September 16 2005, 4:05PM

Very interesting blog!