I agree with that.
Refugee - a person who has escaped from their own country for political, religious or economic reasons or because of a war
______________________________________________________________________________________
Refugees or Evacuees?
Sept 3, 2005 - Atlanta, GA -- I was watching CNN's Jeff Koinange this morning as he reported the news from New Orleans. Koinange described the situation in New Orleans as something similar to a "refugee camp" in a Third World country. But a lot of people on this site and elsewhere have complained about the term "refugee" in describing the newly homeless victims of Hurricane Katrina, so I thought I would look into it.
In some ways I agree with the criticism of the term "refugee," but in other ways I do not. Originally, I thought it was odd that the media chose to describe the evacuees from New Orleans as "refugees." That is a term I had normally associated with people in other countries. But I looked up the word in the dictionary and it describes a refugee as "one that flees," which seems to me to apply to the evacuees in the Gulf Coast.
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."
Given the definition of the word, I disagree with what Rep. Diane Watson said at the Congressional Black Caucus press conference this week, when she criticized the media use of the term "refugee." In fact, I think our resistance to the use the term "refugee" when referring to Americans is problematic.
"'Refugee' calls up to mind people that come from different lands and have to be taken care of," said Watson. "These are American citizens," she said. The assumption in the argument seems to suggest that foreigners can be refugees, but Americans cannot. That assumption raises troubling issues of xenophobia, cultural imperialism and linguistic hypocrisy. Given those issues, I think the use of the term "refugee" makes sense in this case.
But that's not the end of the analysis. If the mostly black evacuees in New Orleans are described as "refugees" but the mostly white evacuees from other parts of the Gulf Coast are described differently, then there's a problem of racial disparity. Once we start to use the term "refugee" to apply to Americans, we cannot do so selectively. But I could find no conclusive evidence to prove that is happening. Instead, the media seem to be using the terms "refugee" and "evacuee" somewhat interchangeably.
I did a Google News search for "New Orleans" and "refugee" and found 2,940 articles. I did another search for "Mississippi" and "refugee" and found 1,430 entries. Similarly, when I searched "Alabama" and "refugee," I found 1,110 news stories. The disparity in the number of listings between New Orleans and the other areas may reflect the increased attention focused on the Big Easy in the news coverage overall. But based on the numbers from the Google searches, it would seem to me that the media are using the term "refugee" to apply to all the evacuees along the Gulf Coast, not just to the blacks.
http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/001472.html
Aren’t they seeking refuge?
Jackson's and some others' objection to the accurate use of the word, "refugees," just as Jackson has evidenced, indicates RACIST DENIGRATION of people who are displaced in the country, outside the country, wherever.
It's just a word to describe a plight. The only racist element in the word is Jackson and others insisting the word describes a lesser-than human...Jackson reveals his OWN racism by saying that the word describes a "bad" human being to any degree.
The word just means that people were/are forced from their homes by unexpected, objectionable events and in need of relocation to safe, secure housing and living situations. I'd say that describes everyone rescued out of Louisiana and other affected areas.