Refugees?
Many progressive commentators of color have recently condemned the use of the term "refugee" to describe New Orleanians who have been forced to flee their homes. Most of the objections I've heard have been in Pacifica webcasts*, so I can't really link to them at the moment. However, I'm not shitting you; people really have complained, and it's been fairly frequent, and I don't recall any of the complaints coming from people who don't identify as what we usually call "black."
Why does this bother them? For that matter, what exactly is a refugee?
The Wikipedia entry for refugee makes a distinction between the legal term and the common usage:"This article is for the group of people as defined by international law. For the description of "refugee" as casually used for any person who has been forced to leave their home, see displaced person."
A refugee is a person seeking asylum in a foreign country in order to escape persecution.
So, it is clear that in the technical, legal sense, the term "refugee" is not applicable, since the hurricane victims have remained in their home country.
But is there a reason to believe that anyone intends to use the formal definition? Has anyone attempted to use the word to draw conclusions, legally or otherwise, about what rights they have? I haven't noticed this; all I've seen is people mentioning the word in passing while making another point-usually advocating on behalf of those displaced by the disaster.
On the other hand, the naïve, literal interpretation of the term as meaning "one seeking refuge" seems to be completely applicable, which makes the strong objection somewhat puzzling to me.
Frankly, the objection has a trace of a tone I usually associate with white working-class racism: "We may be in a bad way, but we're not as pathetic as those people!" Shouldn't we all have compassion for "real" refugees, rather than being so quick to distance ourselves from them? Isn't it a good thing to look for ways to relate to others and understand their plight? I mean, holy shit, a hurricane just destroyed an American city-maybe this is what all those people from other countries feel like?
I wouldn't feel this way if the objection was less vehement or more verbose; but it always seems to be a simple reference to it and saying how horrible it is, without explaining or expressing solidarity with those to whom the term is indisputably applicable.
I know many of you will disagree strongly with me on this. Scroll down to tell me why.
(* Save this to a .m3u file using Notepad and boot it up in WinAmp:
#EXTM3U
#EXTINF:-1,KPFA-FM - Berkeley, CA
http://aud-one.kpfa.org:8000/icy_0
#EXTINF:-1, (KPFK - Southern California's 90.7 FM News, Talk & Music)
http://www.kwire.org:8907/
#EXTINF:-1, (WBAI 99.5 FM New York)
http://streams.riverhosting.net:8000
#EXTINF:-1, (KPFT Houston)
http://www.kpftx.org:8000Sadly, WPFW's only working feed is RealAudio.)
Why does this bother them? For that matter, what exactly is a refugee?
The Wikipedia entry for refugee makes a distinction between the legal term and the common usage:"This article is for the group of people as defined by international law. For the description of "refugee" as casually used for any person who has been forced to leave their home, see displaced person."
A refugee is a person seeking asylum in a foreign country in order to escape persecution.
So, it is clear that in the technical, legal sense, the term "refugee" is not applicable, since the hurricane victims have remained in their home country.
But is there a reason to believe that anyone intends to use the formal definition? Has anyone attempted to use the word to draw conclusions, legally or otherwise, about what rights they have? I haven't noticed this; all I've seen is people mentioning the word in passing while making another point-usually advocating on behalf of those displaced by the disaster.
On the other hand, the naïve, literal interpretation of the term as meaning "one seeking refuge" seems to be completely applicable, which makes the strong objection somewhat puzzling to me.
Frankly, the objection has a trace of a tone I usually associate with white working-class racism: "We may be in a bad way, but we're not as pathetic as those people!" Shouldn't we all have compassion for "real" refugees, rather than being so quick to distance ourselves from them? Isn't it a good thing to look for ways to relate to others and understand their plight? I mean, holy shit, a hurricane just destroyed an American city-maybe this is what all those people from other countries feel like?
I wouldn't feel this way if the objection was less vehement or more verbose; but it always seems to be a simple reference to it and saying how horrible it is, without explaining or expressing solidarity with those to whom the term is indisputably applicable.
I know many of you will disagree strongly with me on this. Scroll down to tell me why.
(* Save this to a .m3u file using Notepad and boot it up in WinAmp:
#EXTM3U
#EXTINF:-1,KPFA-FM - Berkeley, CA
http://aud-one.kpfa.org:8000/icy_0
#EXTINF:-1, (KPFK - Southern California's 90.7 FM News, Talk & Music)
http://www.kwire.org:8907/
#EXTINF:-1, (WBAI 99.5 FM New York)
http://streams.riverhosting.net:8000
#EXTINF:-1, (KPFT Houston)
http://www.kpftx.org:8000Sadly, WPFW's only working feed is RealAudio.)