More objections to the word "refugee"

[sacundim]

There's been a few more since I last wrote about it:

'Refugees' in their land (Boston Globe)
New race row rattles relief drive for hurricane victims

I'm starting to get a more nuanced understanding of the objection. The argument goes, more or less:

1. In the USA, "refugee" is a word that is commonly used to describe displaced people in third-world

Comments

[turkishb]

I think it's also wise to dissect another truth about American history, and that is our lack of land-wars. Excepting Pearl Harbor & 9/11 can you remember a time America had to rebuild its lands because invaders had ruined it? (I am not counting the Civil War.) Even Europe can be much more sympathetic in this light... We are not used to the concept of 'refugees' in any sense. We're not even really conscious of the vast amounts of European refugees after the World Wars. I find that startling lack of insight into history disturbing.

Another thing to recall is that we have cultural expectations of Africa that are not far from the truth, which is that the continent is populated by seperate nomadic settlements. Whereas we can perceive the Europeans as having "rebuilt" we never hear about (regardless of it happening) of Africans doing this. At the same time, many African Americans in NOLA were below the poverty line. They didn't have a steady career, and their housing tended to be subsidized apartment blocks.

I don't deny your link at all -- I agree actually -- but keep in mind Americans really have no comprehension of what it is to be nomadic either by culture or by economics. Hell, we romanticize it in the form of the cowboy, ironically our prototypical "American."