I ran across a disturbing comment on a listserv that I subscribe to. It stated basically:

"Refugee is just literary framing by the mainstream media and the national government to paint a picture for mainstream America that the people who they are seeing on TV, are out of control fleeing savages."

Question for Debate:

Is it racist to use the term "refugees" to describe the displaced victims of Katrina?

I actually think Jesse Jackson has a point, though technically. He stated:

NOLA.com

The definition from dictionary.com says:
Refugee: One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.

Refugee: 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)

Natural disasters aren't mentioned. I think a more apt term is 'evacuees'. But in today's age of using words outside of their intended meaning and just being lazy, I don't see any racist intent behind it.

Is it racist to use the term "refugees" to describe the displaced victims of Katrina?

A refugee is a person forced by circumstances beyond their control into seeking refuge right? Unless your using the term in a derogatory fashion, based on a perception of race, then I don't see how using this word is either racist, or inappropriate given the circumstances involved.

These people are refugee's and it doesn't matter what colour their skin is, or where they are from or whether or not they like the fact that have become refugee's.

Also depends on which dictionary your using:

Good point on differing dictionaries Moif. I hadn't thought of that. It's not often that I am willing to cut Jackson any slack. I still think evacuees is a more technically correct term, if given a choice between the two, and that choice we have.
But I'll not call anyone a racist for using it in a non-derogatory manner. I do, however think that Jackson's time and energies could be better spent on other endeavors at this particular time.

Racist, no. Lucrative, yes, for some enterprising college professor who wants to apply for a grant to study the so-called "issue."

"Refugee" was the term used for those fleeing Hitler's Wehrmacht and the Holocaust, and the people populating the West Bank "refugee camps." There's nothing race-based at all in the term. One of my favorite Mark Knopfler songs, "Why Aye Man," refers to British workers left jobless by Thatcher-ite policies as "We had no way of staying afloat/ We had to leave on the ferry boat/ economic refugees/ on the run to Germany."

My Webster's New World Dictionary defines a refugee as "a person who flees from home or country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or political or religious persecution."

This is a classic example of what happens when we let words be carelessly redefined. When a word can mean anything it no longer means anything at all.


Couldn't agree more. Maybe, while people are looking for food and water, Jackson can find something else divisive with which to distract us.

I don't actually understand how the term refugee could be interpreted as derogatory. A refugee is a person seeking refuge. That seems to fit the circumstances, but if it bothers people I suppose we should use a different term as it costs nothing.

I think a lot of people are on edge right now. It's a bad situation, and so many people are suffering and without homes. Since New Orlean's population is 67 percent black, there are a lot of black homeless people. Insensitive statements like the one Bush made about Trent Lott's house don't help. I realize that to some (I'm sure to Bush also) it sounded innocuous, because everyone sees the world based on his/her own perspective....but that perspective has a dramatic impact on perceptions and everyone (especially the president) should be aware of that.

I must say that I totally agree with Mrs. Pigpen. I can not see anything inherently bad if one uses the term "refugees" in describing the victims in New Orleans. BUT, if the term does upset certain people, and especially the people coming from NO, than we should use a different word to describe them (evacuees, as DTOM suggested is also a good word in my opninion). It doesnt serve anything if people in America start a whole debate about the use of a certain word. They should unite and help the people of New Orleans who lost everything after Katarina.

Personally, while I don't see the problem calling these people refugees, since that's what they are. At least in the literal sense - I'd say that in Houston, they are refugees, since they are taking refuge here from something happening somewhere else.

In Lousiana and other affected states, I'd say "evacuees" was more precise, since they have been evacuated from there

But my British experience tells me that such technically neutral words can be nuanced with all sorts of negative meaning.

For example, here in Britain, "refugees" is no longer a word that gets used very much. Immigration of all kinds is seen as a "problem" (despite lots of evidence that it has been hugely beneficial), yet calling someone a "refugee" connotes that, since they are simply taking refuge from factors outside their control, it is our duty to welcome them and help them.

So instead, the debate has been successfully reframed to call such people "asylum seekers" instead. This makes them more willing participants, who want something from us that it is entirely in our power to give, and removes most of the sense of obligation we might have for them. The burden of proof shifts almost entirely to them - they have to prove that they would be in danger if they stayed at home.

If "refugees" has been used in the USA to indicate some feeling of contempt or derision, I can see why the people on the receiving end don't like it. And I can see how such negative meaning might be there - especially in the light of the media attention given to the looting and pillaging that went on (supposedly - funny how many of the people so keen to assert that it definitely did suddenly get all coy and ask for the facts to come in before making a judgement before the DHS or the President get blamed for anything). British TV news this week showed a short interview with a Houston woman who was buying a gun after a lifetime of not owning one, out of genuine fear of the potential problems that might be caused by the large numbers of "refugees" in her city, some of whom, she'd been told, had rampaged around the ruins of New Orleans only days earlier.

With all the frayed nerves (both here on this board and in the nation as a whole) in the wake of the flood, it's not going to take much to honk off some folks. I prefer "American citizens" to "refugees" but as much of the Gulf Coast looks like a Third World country crawling from the wreckage, I can see why it's become a point of contention.

This too shall pass. There are racial elements to this story, both subtle and overt, but by and large the "controversy" over someone fleeling New Orleans as a "refugee" or an "evacuee" is really a minor one.

I don’t know whether it’s racism or insensitivity or a little of both.

I heard on the news tonight that Rush Limbaugh called Katrina Hurricane Katrina Van Heuvel. I checked it out and one of the links leads to Limbaugh 24/7. I can’t go any further with this because I refuse to pay $6.95 to join this utter jerk’s page.

From Google Search

Rush Is Right: Doom and Gloom Liberals Will Use Hurricane To ...
Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel has now come ashore and it is wreaking havoc.
... Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. ...
www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ site_082905/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

Before all this is over, I think we'll see a lot of racism and insensitivity surface.

I have been using the term refugee because I feel it is more appropriate. An evacuee is someone who is withdrawing from a situation and it does not imply the need for assistance. I think Katrina caused evacuee's and refugees. But that there are many people who need significant assistance in surviving the devastation of Katrina, the flooding, and the aftermath, I think the stronger term refugee is a greater call for assistance. If this call is not out there, then why all of the outrage at the lack of response from the government.

The reason I have personally been thinking in terms of refugee is to differentiate the level of need created. As my area absorbs many of the survivors of Katrina at least for the short term, I hope we will rise to the level of hospitality and aid that will provide for those that get released from hospitals with nothing and visit the national guard armories and churches that are housing the people who have fled the Katrina zone for our area.

As a sad side note, the competition for the best basketball and football players from these regions seems to be at a high level already.

From Merriam-Webster Online:



Refugee is a perfectly valid word to describe those fleeing the dangers existing in New Orleans.

I could not find a single dictionary definition that included the word "derogatory" in reference to usage of the word.

If a few people do not understand the correct definition and proper use of a word, they should be enlightened, not lied to.

Is there no end to the word games that Jackson will play to get himself back in the limelight?

Is it racist to use the term "refugees" to describe the displaced victims of Katrina?

I don't think so. Were I forced to leave my home and seek emergency housing of some sort - especially if it were in another state - and especially if I had no home to return to - I would think of myself as a refugee. I'm a bit surprised by Gordon's statement that "They are offended when you use that term to describe them." Who's this "they"? How many evacuees has he interviewed? And was the most pressing question he had to ask them, "Some are calling you refugees - how do you feel about that?" I suspect my first question would've been "Do you need some water? An extra blanket maybe?"

This sounds like unnecessary quibbling to me. There's certainly enough evidence of classism (which can certainly be equated with racism in this case) in relation to this disaster and its aftermath to bother with inventing even more.

Are these people refugees? Only by the dictionary definition.

I hearken back to the congressman who used the term "niggardly", which by definition means "miserly", and then had to publicly apologize - and for what? For using a word in context that had absolutely nothing to do with race (and still doesn't for that matter).

The term "refugees" is in the exact same category. As long as the media is using the term properly and in context, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. But, you can bet the politically correct people at the networks were scrambling as soon as someone even hinted that it was racist.

Nowadays, anyone in any part of the globe who may possibly take offense to a term must be the object of our sensitivity.

Since any person, regardless of race, creed, religion or sex can be a refugee- no, it is not in even the most flexible sense of the word racist.

However, I think that calling American citizens who pay American taxes and live(d) on American soil refugees is a tad insensitive. A person who is displaced from their home is a victim, not a refugee. Refugees are people who are fleeing their homeland because of events beyond their control... when last I checked, the victims of Katrina were still living in America. So applying the fact that these people are Americans and only their town was destroyed, not their country, it is a safe assumption to say that they are not refugees at all.

I am still trying to figure out how using the word 'refugee' can be applied to a person in a racist form...