Over the weekend, I got into a yelling match over the stupidest thing: the use of the terms “refugee” vs. “evacuee” in stories about Katrina.
(Blame it on the stress.)
A variety of folks have said that the word “refugee” is demeaning and inappropriate for Katrina victims. Jesse Jackson: “‘It is racist to call American citizens refugees,’ said Jackson, adding that the word connotes subhuman or criminals.” Well-meaning people (some of whom read this site!) have said it artificially puts distance between the reader and the affected people. My own employer — and we’re not the only ones — has decided we should use “evacuee” and not “refugee.”
Never mind that the dictionary definition of refugee perfectly fits these folks. They are seeking refuge; they have been forcibly removed from their homes by forces larger than themselves and are pursuing “protection or shelter, as from danger or hardship.”
My inner linguistic strict constructionist — the one who believes that words are useful in the communication of thoughts and shouldn’t be artificially limited by social norms — says it’s the best word. Or at the very least, it’s a good word that should be in our writerly toolbox.
But the most insulting thing I’ve heard is the idea (expressed by Jackson and others) that we shouldn’t call these people refugees because they’re Americans. Here’s someone named Lothario Lotho, an Oakland-based party planner : “He blasted some news reports that described the hurricane victims as refugees. ‘These are not refugees,” Lotho [said]. “These are displaced American citizens, and they need our love and support. They are Americans affected in an adverse way by a natural disaster that has never been seen before in this country.'”
Of course they deserve our love and support. Of course. I’m from Louisiana. This thing has wrecked me on a couple different levels.
But the underlying theme of many in the “they’re not refugees” crowd is: These are Americans. They’re not the trash we usually call “refugees.” I mean, does Jesse Jackson think that refugees in Rwanda, Angola, or the Sudan are “subhuman” and “criminals”? I hope not. I’ve always thought of them as incredibly unlucky people who, because of forces beyond their control, have had to leave their homes. Just like Katrina victims.
6 thoughts on “refugees vs. evacuees”
Comments are closed.
Amen, to every point.
Amen. I’ve been calling myself a refugee since we left. I completely agree with you.
This has been bothering me almost since the beginning. I didn’t know so many people gave “refugee” a negative connotation.
Do you remember when the D.C. mayor (at the time) cabinet member used the term “niggardly”? Some people invent their own definitions, but there are times when words have too much weight to them, regardless of meaning. Permanently displaced person with some to no assets just takes so long to say.
Thank you for saying so eloquently what I too have been feeling but lacked the words to express. I was shocked that so many people apparently think of refugees in the rest of the world with such disdain. Moreso than the shock I felt that using the term in regards to this situation implied that anyone saw the victims of Katrina as any less human or less citizens than anyone else in the country. There is already enough to feel indignant about without looking for something that isn’t there.
Josh you are quite right in pointing out that the literal meaning of the term refugee fits the description of the Katrina situation. However the term refugee is usually used in a contextual setting that is usually associated with people who flee from their Country due to some form of persecution or fear thereof. Tell me Josh when you first heard the term refugee used, what was it used to describe? Therefore, in the Katrina circumstances people tend to feel marginalized if they are labeled as refugees by fellow citizens of their Country. I don’t see it as being racist but a poor choice of words by the media in this particular situation.