"refugee" a bad word

[Michael McKernan]

Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>CNN just presented a member of Congress who said, approximately:
>
>"The media must stop referring to 'refugees.' They are not refugees. They
>are American citizens. To refer to them as refugees is to place them in an
>entirely different status."
>
>On the one hand, this is an absurd statement. They *are* refugees, and
>there's nothing wrong with that.  On the other hand, they *are* American
>citizens, a designation which does seem to confer rather greater dignity.
>
>What irks me is the suggestion that the word "refugee" should now be
>absolutely prohibited in this situation.

I just heard this same sentiment last night, from my next door neighbor.
Realizing that he'd spend several years in Thailand teaching English at
refugee camps, I guessed that his reaction was based on the feeling that
'refugees' were international.  This turned out to be correct, and his
wife, feeling likewise, added 'and fleeing political persecution' or
something similar.

When I suggested that 'refugee' could mean a person in need of refuge from
any kind of peril, they became much more accepting of the term.

It seems that for some people intra-national usage of 'refugee' is
questioned; in additional, non-political usage may be questioned.  But this
doesn't necessarily mean a value judgement concerning their 'status' in a
hierarchy.

OTOH, I am not surprised to hear that some people may have a negative
impression of 'refugee' status.  In all cases, reluctance to use this term
in connection with Katrina evacuees who are USA citizens appears to be
based on a perception that the term has meaning only in connection with
international matters and foreigners.

My neighbors also suggested that awful NGO jargon, 'internally-displaced
person' (which I suppose could mean someone with a hiatal hernia...).


Michael McKernan