home

Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term?

By Jeralyn, Section Huricanes Katrina and Rita
Posted on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 05:02:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Back here, we had a pretty good discussion going over what to call those who were evacuated from New Orleans and other Katrina-devastated areas.

Jesse Jackson is taking umbrage with the term "refugees." I don't like the term either and suggested evacuees. But that seems to fit those in the process of being evacuated, rather than those who are settling into new places. Survivors is another term frequently being used.

Another suggestion: Internally Displaced Persons, or IDP's for short.

< Rumsfeld Visits Louisiana, Ignores Victims | Blaming the Administration is Not Rooted in Bush Hatred >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? | 31 comments (31 topical)
    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#1)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    casualties victims

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    "Internally Displaced Persons", somehow, seems to connote "in the wrong place", which they are not. They're in their own country. "Refugees" is generally a term applied to those running from persecution, political, usually. Bad choice. "Victim" risks fostering a victim mentality. How about "Katrina Survivors"?

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#3)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    How about "people?" If you need something more specific, qualify it. People who remain in New Orleans. People who evacuated before the storm. People who were rescued off of rooftops. People who were relocated to Houston. People who were treated as if they weren't people. The only common thread that goes through every person affected is his or her humanity. No term is going to adequately cover every circumstance, and people deserve better than to be lumped into some all-encompassing term. I also think the outrage over the term "refugee" is a little premature. If that term started to find its way into legislation or something more impactful than news reports, that would be one thing. But in the short term to make such a stink over a word seems a lot like manufactured outrage to me. There's plenty of real stuff to be pissed about.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    The Dispossessed

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Amen, Ditto.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    There is nothing wrong with the term refugees. They are in need of refuge. The term has no negative connotation. They also appear to need saving from the government. Evacuees sounds like they are the victims of another Bush bowel movement. Hey, wait a minute!

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patriot Daily on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Hi Jeralyn - this is Linda and Laura from Patriot Daily. This is our first comment, so we hope we use this thing right! We love the word “refugees” because when we first heard it used with Katrina, it had such shock and emotional value - that this could happen in America. Refugees are generally defined as citizens who are forced to leave Country A, usually in times of war due to political oppression or religious persecution, fleeing to Country B for refuge. We thought this was so appropriate because the political, social and economic infrastructure had so much to do with why they were left to fend for themselves in New Orleans. And, the term would be so humiliating for Bush, both here and throughout world, that it may spur assistance to the survivors much faster down the road, when the story drops off the front pages. But, refugees are usually not citizens of Country B, and with the loss of that status comes the loss of many legal rights and the addition of negative perceptions. So, we crossed out the use of refugees. Evacuee is used for persons evacuated from a dangerous area. But, it has the perception of being a temporary status that disappears when the danger is gone. And, it also just struck us as a politically convenient word, like “detainee,” which is simply a made-up status to deprive people of rights accorded by the constitution and international law. So, for these reasons, we do not like internally displaced persons either. So, we use survivors because they have survived the economic class warfare that left them stranded in the hurricane areas and the neglect by Bush that left them stranded for days without basic necessities of life. But, still we are conflicted because survivor does not seem appropriate in the long term, and they may be left homeless for 2 years. Do we still call them survivors in a year from now? It would seem that this term may also create a new status in America of people who would be treated differently.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Paralegal on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    I guess the term refugees is OK, especially since "these people" are from "that part of the world". I agree with Ditto, they are people...

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#9)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    W and his administration abandoned a half million Americans to look out for themselves. American Refugees works for me.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Edger, Katrina survivors identifies them uniquely. No ambiguity.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Refugee is the best word to accurately describe what these people have been through. What a disgrace for American citizens to be refugees in their own country! Calling them anything else is sugar-coating it.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    You go, Ditto. Yeah, I can't do it. I was just over at my sister's and said "refugees." She was bending over & stood up when I said it & had this look. I said, "I know. They're Americans." I don't like refugees; it's too uncomfortable. So we just said the people in NO, the people who left NO, the people at the Superdome, the people, the people... It's like there HAS to be some quick, cute label.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    I don't care what PC term you want to use, the fact is they're AMERICANS and they're HOMELESS!! If you want to divide them from the "Chronic Homeless", fine, call them the KATRINA HOMELESS. You can call them "Life's Little Clocks" for all I care. It won't change the facts. Now what are we gonna DO about it? Are there any merits in a 9/11 style Victim Compensation Fund?

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    "Refugees" is spot on. That's what they are! And, besides, why the hell are we quibbling about terminology when we should all be focused on the criminal negligence of the Bush Administration! In the past week, men, women and children have drowned in the attics of their homes, hundreds of toddlers don't know where their parents are and one of America's great cities is in ruins, for God's sake. Let's get back to the main event--helping those people who've lost everything get their lives back together, rooting the evil out of our government and driving the dishonest, greedy politicians out of office--and let's stop screwing around parsing words and fussing with meaningless nuance.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    They are refugees. "Victims" implies their condition is accidental. It was the first day, less so the second day they were abandoned, not at all by now. The Superdome was a refugee camp, with all the squalor and the hopelessness that the name implies. It's true that denial is one of the stages of grieving. But there's no time to waste. Al Qaeda has received a great deal of intelligence about America's preparedness for a large-scale attack in the last few days. Several scenarios are possible: A nuclear attack, an attack on the water supply or the food supply. Or even a rapid series of coordinated attacks. It is even possible that the recent London attacks were an exercise designed to draw out the defense forces and learn a little bit about how they operate. Think like a terrorist: What would bin Laden do? There's no time to waste.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    REFUGEES. It's 100% accurate, and applies no stigma to the individual being described as the term simply means that this person has been forcibly displaced, and has no where to go. It's a much easier to use term than being-flooded-while-black in George Bush's Amerika.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Internally Displaced Persons ???? How insensitive can my fellow progressives get? That term sounds almost as hate-filled as if a Rethuglican came up with it! Obviously, not all of those "displaced" will be "persons." Some of them will be non-human animals, and some of them will not be that either! As (surely!) Anne Rice would tell you, "The Big Easy" is home to a large Vampire population, and they would take much umbrage at this term. Let me throw this out there: Internally Displaced Beings and Others. We could even pronounce it "id-bo"! I suggest that we liberals, progressives, and Democrats have a big meeting about this on Thursday. Until then, we can spend our time thinking about this. Of course, we'll need to spend a lot of time working this out, and that's something I look forward to working with my fellow Comm progressives on.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Here's an acronym for them: Beings Under Siege Homeless, Flooded, Utterly Condemned by Katrina and an Executive branch Dufus

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    I can't believe the termonology is now the subject of so much media coverage. Anyone who is upset with the term used to identify them as a victim in the aftermath of this hurricane, is demonstrating thier lack of despiration and need for help. If I'm in a house that has been flooded with contanimated water for 5 days or if I'm in a sports complex with dead bodies and feces, call me what ever you want...just help me. This debate is so trivial.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#21)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    Speaking of language, did you all notice how militarized the language about Katrina has become? Some examples from the cable news outlets: Commencement of Combat Operations when the military and natl guard was arriving, Urban Warfare (MSNBC) for the latest shootings by some NOLA thugs. In other cities, these types are referred to as criminals, and authorities are engaged in crime fighting or the like (NOT urban warfare). Refugees, Snipers as opposed to gunmen or criminals or suspects, Looters (like in Baghdad after Shock and Awe), Has anyone heard other military terms? I don't think this is a good development. We need to stay aware, and know what is happening with our "leaders". Otherwise, we share responsibility for losing our democracy without so much as a ,"STOP that, or else!" moment. (Understated for effect.)

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    This debate is so trivial. In a perfect world, yes, our media would care more about substance over rhetoric. But now that propaganda has become the order of our consolidated media machine, terms are chosen carefully so as to destroy language, demonize ideas, and devalue certain groups to promote others.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    Wishful, that's quite correct. There is an obvious attempt to tie this action into the kind of jargon we would see in a police state/martial law scenario. They want to get people used to such phraseology. 'Internally-displaced persons' may be an accurate term, but refugee doesn't mean someone has lost their citizenship, as Rev. Jackson apparently feels. Clearly he thinks it is a derogatory term, because it suggests stateless persons. In Africa, 'refugees' often end up isolated in 'refugee camps' ...that's probably what brings up this reaction to a simple term. It is not the case that there are terms for every distinction, and some terms do become derogatory through association. But 'refugee' is a useful term, is still a non-derogatory term, and we need to not burn down the language we've got, in favor of mush. Citizens they remain, entitled to FAR BETTER TREATMENT from the government. Refugees that they are now, they need to be restored to their homes as quickly as possible.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves? The radio says, "They are just deportees"
    Like in the old Woody Guthrie song.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    This is some of the stuff they are going through: When the first buses arrived in Houston, to unload their unhappy cargo at the next domed stadium—the Astrodome—desperation mixed with relief. "I have no idea where my 2-year-old son is," said Nicole Williams, 41. She wore a T shirt marked PLEASE HELP ME FIND MY FAMILY. On the back were listed the names of four family members. They were separated at the I-10 cloverleaf. When Williams tried to reach for her baby so he could ride in her lap, she says, a state trooper sprayed Mace in her face to keep her from getting off the bus. "They maced my mother and my daughter," she said. "Then the door slammed shut."

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#27)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    I think we should adopt Ernesto's acronym.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#28)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    Sounds like a defacto repeal of Posse Comitatus.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    I wrote: "Clearly he thinks it is a derogatory term, because it suggests stateless persons." mar: "No, he clearly says it's a derogatory term because it suggests non-Americans. And we can't equate ***Americans*** with those n---s in Africa, can we?" Hard to tell if that's a racist comment, 'mar.' I presume it is. Your 'non-Americans' is what I meant by stateless persons. So the only reason why you'd say the other part is because you wish to express the idea that JJ Jr. is somehow a racist. That's HILARIOUS, you troll.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    Re: language and the militarization/dehumanization of what we have seen over the past week, 1. Social scientists do indeed prefer the term "internally displaced persons" or "IDPs" for those who've been forced to leave yet haven't crossed an international border. Usually they are using it in reference to Africa or Afghanistan. I think what's interesting is how different this labeling problem becomes when we are considering what to call our fellow American citizens and the concrete realities they are going through right here in the U.S. This is the part that causes discomfort. When we start to consider what word to use at home, it becomes obvious that a term like "IDPs" completely glosses over that these are people, our fellow men and women, and, what's more, persons for whom those "American values" and "freedoms" that we're busy spreading throughout the world, starting with the Middle East, were supposed to be operating with the same strength as they are for wealthy and middle-class Americans. Now we can start to see in what tatters those ideals really are. For that reason, I'd say "refugees" perhaps is a better term, if only to emphasize the bankrupt quality of what we've been letting Shrub (in the short term) and the Republican party (in the longer term) do to our country. 2. As for militarizing the language of the relief effort: Did you notice how the only metaphor that Bush could conjure up to express the devastation he saw in "that part of the world" on Friday was to say it was like it had been struck by "the worst kind of weapon"? I'm convinced he just can't force his little mind around any concept of threat or struggle except that of war (and the ol' notion of WMD).

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    blue: "if only to emphasize the bankrupt quality of what we've been letting Shrub" Letting? Letting? You may have been letting, but WE have most of us been fighting this coup as hard as we can without wrecking our lives to add to the carnage. They are stealing our elections, by bribes and rigged (electronic) voting equipment in 30 states. That gave the rightwing control of our government. It's a coup, it is not something for which anyone I know is to blame, and that includes most of our Democrats in Congress.

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    Paul, there is six billion non-Americans in the world, few of them stateless. And this may come as a shock to your and rev. Jackson's American-centerad minds, but even fewer of them find it particularly derogatory even if they are not U.S. citizens. Somebody really should tell REVEREND Jackson what Jesus said about jews and greeks. Your attitude is shining nicely through, tho. If you are not American you are stateless. Well, *that's* hilarious!

    Re: Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Of course, I didn't say anything about that, mar. I'm still not sure I understand your point. If you are a refugee of the sort driven out of a country (or to a refugee camp apparently forever), that loss of citizenship is, I believe, JJ Jr.'s concern about the term 'refugee.' However, the term itself does not inherently refer to those African cases.

    Terminology: Is Refugees a Bad Term? | 31 comments (31 topical)