We have been discussing whether the word "refugee" should be used for the people in New Orleans who have been evacuated. Some say that "refugee" is an "offensive" term. Others say that it should only be used for those who flee from their native lands because of persecution or oppression.
Yet, others feel the term is appropriate...certainly more evocative then the word favored by the media, "evacuees." They feel "evacuees" is too mild of a term. They say that "refugee" doesn't have to be used only for those who leave their native country and point out references to the "Dust Bowl refugees" in the 1930s.
Thoughts? Does "refugee" have a negative connotation? Should it only be used for people who flee the country because of oppression? Or can it be used in this circumstance?
According to Wordweb a refugee is "An exile who flees for safety". That doesn't seem offensive to me neither does it seem to restrict the flight to one that leaves a country.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Well, they're seeking refuge, and that makes them refugees to me, and it is the word I've used to describe them. Of course, I spent about 5 seconds when the topic first came up deciding that refugee was the appropriate term.
Refugee has a negative connotation is general, but that doesn't mean we can't use it in this context. As far as I can tell, refugee invokes images of people fleeing with the clothes on their backs from devastation and death behind them, with no one to help them and no place to go. Sounds pretty good to me. We have to provide shelter and food to them in the short term, like you must to refugees, and in the long term, we must help them rebuild.
Evacuees is a pretty stupid term. The people of New Orleans need refuge, not some sort of internet vacuum, or whatever mental image you get from evacuees. Evacuee has a connotation of short. You evacuate a building for a bomb scare. Refugee illicits the specific emotion of long term separation from home, which is exactly the case.
If you don't like refugee, then at least pick something good. I think Camus or Sartre had a good word for this kind of thing. Or, we good go back to Latin. Any Latin speakers want to chime in with a suggestion?
Now might be a good time to consider rebuilding Nicodemus, Kansas. Industries could be given tax breaks for locating at Nicodemus and offering employment to immigrants (former refugees, evacuees, whatever label fits.)
Posts: 6708 | Location: Kehena Beach, Hawaii, U.S.A.
Evacuee has a connotation of short. You evacuate a building for a bomb scare. Refugee illicits the specific emotion of long term separation from home, which is exactly the case.
Exactly what I thought. Those are what the two words connote, and I can't see any objection to calling people refugees who are going to be stuck in temporary accommodation such as stadiums for months because they can't go home.
I don't feel that refugee has a negative connotation. I think it is the ideal word to use as these unfortunate people are seeking refuge. I can see how some people might believe the word is negative, though. It is sometimes used as a synonym for immigrant; as every red-blooded American/British person knows, these people are coming over here, taking our jobs and our women...
To me, evacuee has the implicit idea of someone leaving because something might happen, not because it has happened. A building is evacuated because of a bomb scare, perhaps. During WW2 many children were moved from urban areas at risk from German bombs to the countryside. This was a precaution, not a result of their already being bombed. These children were known as evacuees.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Refugee illicits the specific emotion of long term separation from home, which is exactly the case.
Interesting use of "illicit," as though an adjective were a verb. Did you mean that "refugee" de-legitimizes separation anxiety? Or did you mean "elicit?"
As for Latin speakers, I seem to recall that the Latin term for "flee" is fugere, so a refugee is one who flees from something. I think that "refugee" is entirely appropriate in this context.
I meant elicit, and just typed the wrong word. My pronunciation of elicit is pretty close to illicit, which is part of my problem. Upon a bit of introspection, I know and have used the correct pronunciation of elicit before, although it obviously doesn't come up in my writing very often, which is why I spelled it wrong. I think I spelled separate wrong for a couple of years without it being caught, because most of my work was done with auto-spellchecking.
Today in the Chicago Tribune alone there were 3 separate articles about the use of "refugee" versus "evacuees," "victims," or "survivors." One column was entitled, "Defining the People of New Orleans Has Become a Linguistic Challenge." Another said, "And who am I--who is anyone--to inflict a prissy little etymology lesson on those who have lost nearly everything?" One column discussed the points in a neutral way, while one article said that we should call them "evacuees" or "survivors" out of respect. The other article stated that "...it would be a shame if American news organizations shied away from using a perfectly legitimate and descriptive word for bad reasons."
I think I agree with the latter point of view, though I suppose if people who are already stressed don't want to be called "refugees," we should respect that.
I think I agree with the latter point of view, though I suppose if people who are already stressed don't want to be called "refugees," we should respect that.
I doubt most of them give a rat's backside WHAT you call them, so long as you call them!
An interesting piece on NPR today mentioned that New Orleans really was "The Big Easy" for poor people, since there was really cheap housing, cheap, good food, community gardens, and a strong social network. That is NOT going to be easy to restore!
I doubt most of them give a rat's backside WHAT you call them, so long as you call them!
I do think that many of them care. That's how this got started.
Yes, I heard a report where somebody explained how he was able to live on a dollar a day there. The diet was beans and rice, which really is fairly nutritious. It will not be easy, I agree!
I'm estimating here, but I would say there are almost a billion people worldwide who live on a dollar a day or less. I would imagine beans and rice are pretty much the standard food for most of those people.
Would they prefer "Intra-American Refugees"? It is more accurate, probably more evocative, and sheds the connotation of flight from persecution.
I do think the press uses "refugee" condescendingly sometimes, to imply marginalization even when the subjects' unfortunate exclusion comes purely by happenstance. But I also believe "refugee" is the appropriate term in lieu of some other established description; Internally Displaced Person is certainly no more endearing.
A very interesting and appropriate piece; thanks zmjezhd. I liked this part especially, on the selective use of the word looting: "After a thousand years of social inequality and natural disasters, the English language still doesn't have a word for someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family."
You're welcome, braket. And welcome aboard. When Nunberg mentioned said this, I immediately thought of an eponym on the Hugo character Jean Valjean. But what would it be?
Of course, The Onion has a slightly different take on foraging vs looting. (Caution, satire and Budweiser are both used in this article.)
Very interesting articles, Zmj. Thanks. I've always loved Nunberg. He has persuaded me that "refugee" is not the word. The discussion of "looting" was good, too. I had seen those 2 pictures where the black people were "looting" when they took food, but the white people were "taking food."
Shu and I just read The Onion tonight. I thought that headline was perfect!
The firefighter who took an American flag off a private yacht without the owner's consent or knowledge and his buddies who helped him raise it at Ground Zero after the World Trade Center attacks were hailed as national heroes, not looters.
Good old Onion - always spot on, and pulling no punches.
I was stunned at the pictures with different captions, which I've only just learnt about on this thread. I thought such horrendous double standards were beyond even the gutter press. Obviously I've been having another Stupidly Naive moment.
Cat, I hear you. However, the one good thing is that there has been a huge outcry about it here, at least in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune printed both pictures next to each other and they decried it. Many other newspapers throughout the U.S. did as well. It doesn't make it right, but it helps.
The Wikipedia article, Hurricane Katrina, offers this definition (under 8.2 Race and class issues):
quote:
The Immigration and Nationality Act defines "refugee" in Sec. 101(a)(42) as: Any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
TinmanThis message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,
That definition is completely different from what the word actually means. However, in government, it is necessary to define things in this manner. For intance, if you had a rule like "All refugees shall be given shelter, food, ...", you need to have a clear definition of the word.
Talked to a friend who works at a newspaper, and I was told that they were specifically told not to use "refugee", and to use "evacuee" instead. This is more because people were offended by the use of refugee than any opinion of the newspaper higher-ups.
Michael Quinion has a long piece on this issue in his newsletter. Forgive me for quoting at length:
quote:
[...] The definitions in many dictionaries are along the lines of “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster”. So, the objectors seem to be arguing (I must confess to some difficulty working this out), if the escaping victims of the disaster are refugees, and they are within the USA, then that implies they aren’t American citizens. And since the great majority of those left in New Orleans when the hurricane struck are black, that implies that reporters who are using refugee are racist, denigrating black people as lower than second-class citizens. This is a convoluted argument based on either ignorance or selective reading of reference books and isn’t supported by usage. And where criminality might come in baffles me completely.
Many people will be surprised to hear that refugee necessarily implies a move to another country. Not all dictionaries take this view: the Random House Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country”, which leaves open the possibility that it might be a flight within one country, and the American Heritage Dictionary says simply “One who flees in search of refuge”, without reference to a destination. However, the Oxford English Dictionary — followed by other Oxford dictionaries and echoing the definition in the 1951 United Nations refugees convention — firmly says that travel across a national border is implicit. The OED’s entry shows that the first use of refugee was in reference to the French Huguenots who came to England after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. The term is itself French, and comes from réfugier, to seek refuge. The link with refuge is a strong influence on sense; both words derive from Latin refugium, a place of refuge, in which the core is fugere, to flee.[...]
To end, he says:
quote:
[...] Evacuee implies an orderly and organised process. Refugee implies a desperate, involuntary and unplanned move. The former doesn’t have the emotive implications or emotional force of the latter. Whatever its dictionary sense, or the definitions of the international aid organisations, or the plaints of politicians, or the lexical views of dictionaries and pedants, for most people refugee sums up the situation of the sufferers more accurately than any other.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'm happy to see that my guess that "refugee" comes from "fugere" is correct, but had not known that the term originated with those large, insane religious Frenchmen, the Hugenuts!
A related issue is the use of "immigration" to denote moving from one state, county, shire, department, province, or whatever, to another area within a single country. The PC types prefer "in-migrtion," but that scrapes harshly on my sense of language.
for most people refugee sums up the situation of the sufferers more accurately than any other.
The problem, as Nunberg stated, is that, like it or not, there is a tinge of racism with 'refugee.' Given that, I see no problem in using 'evacuee.' We have received about 1400, or so, evacuees in the Chicago area, and the process has been planned and orderly. So I think the whole process, now at least, can accurately be described as "evacuation."
I would tend to call them "survivors." That's an accurate term that applies to all who experienced Hurricane Katrina, regardless of social, economic, or racial status. Tinman
The problem with "survivors", crappy tv show aside, is that the connotation is all wrong. You're a cancer survivor. If you survive a natural disaster and your home is destroyed, you must seek refuge.
The other problem is that more than 99% survived, and survivors implies that their survival was an accomplishment.
A series of CNN/Gallop polls have shown the following results:
Did race play a role in the federal government's slow response to people stranded in New Orleans because of Hurricane Katrina?
Whites - 1 in 8 said yes Blacks - 6 in 10 said yes
Were you bothered by the word "refugee," when referring to residents who were evacuated because of Hurricane Katrina?
Whites - 37% said yes Blacks - 77% said yes
Were the people who took food and survival materials from stores primarily desperate people trying to find a way to survive?
Whites - 50% said these were mostly looting criminals Blacks - 77% said they were finding ways to survive
Those statistics show, to me, that there is a social implication of the word "refugee," used in this context. While I hate to be too politically correct, I also want to be sensitive to others' feelings, and I think that is why I just can't use the word "refugee" to describe these residents who were evacuated.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
