Faheema. Posted September 5, 2005 I was watching the news last night about the situation in New Orleans and noticed the reporter using the term “Refugee†while the presenter was using the term “Evacuee†to describe the same thing. Then today I’ve read in couple of sites how some Black people were complaining about the use of the term. (What! An American cannot be called a refugee?) :confused: Yes! The public perception of refugees is often a negative one and is mostly associated with the Third World. But, if we look the loose definition of the word in the dictionary “: an individual seeking refuge†(although term's definition varies wildly) it describes the situation perfectly. So why are there complaints? We are aware in the media and politics, language plays a major role and what we call a people dictates how we view and treat them...The media described the situation in New Orleans as something similar to a "Refugee Camp" in a Third World country and that’s how they will be treated. Like it or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted September 5, 2005 An American cannot be called a refugee Absolutly not!.Especially if its their own country.How can one be a refugee in their own country?. This shows you how black folks are not treated as Americans. Pure boloney. Also,if i for instance move from say Baltimore,MD which has a high rate of crime,and i move to say Burlington,Vermont,with a relatively low crime rate; am i considered a refugee?. I ran from violence,torture,drugs and poor lving conditions. Its just malevolent! :mad: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baluug Posted September 5, 2005 Originally posted by Cawo: The media described the situation in New Orleans as something similar to a "Refugee Camp" in a Third World country and that’s how they will be treated. Like it or not. Rapes,killing,stealing....Exactly the same thing that happens in Somali refugee camps.Yep,I would call them refugees. Now they know what Somalia has gone through for too long now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faheema. Posted September 5, 2005 Originally posted by Brown: Also,if i for instance move from say Baltimore,MD which has a high rate of crime,and i move to say Burlington,Vermont,with a relatively low crime rate; am i considered a refugee?. I ran from violence,torture,drugs and poor lving conditions. No, you will not be called a refugee...One would use the term migrate to describe the above...simply because you Chose to leave...you were not driven out...as the case for a Refugee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted September 5, 2005 No, you will not be called a refugee...One would use the term migrate to describe the above...simply because you Chose to leave...you were not driven out...as the case for a Refugee But i was DRIVEN out of my county? I feared perssucetion from the local gang,i was robbed of my daily belongings :confused: OK this is a weak argument.and also i dont wanna change the topic But,I still refuse the term refugee for the new orleanians. Its demeaning and disparaging term for one to be called a fugee in your own country. Do you agree or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faheema. Posted September 5, 2005 ^^^ Well it was a weak comparison…However I am sorry to hear that you were Driven Out...Hope you’re settling alright now Originally posted by Brown Do you agree or not? I understand the term refugee has negative connotations…but on this matter I don't agree with you…that fact is anyone, from anywhere, at any time can be a refugee and being an American is no acceptation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sheherazade Posted September 5, 2005 They're the sons and daughters of the kidnapped. Was it ever home? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Us_Marines Posted September 6, 2005 Brown that was not a good comparison but i agree with you they should not be called refugees. The term refugee Under international law, a is a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution. They are subgroup of the broader category of displaced persons. They are distinguished from economic I don't think they are refugees, They were moved to another statebut not another country.They can be called evacuees or victims of Disaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LANDER Posted September 6, 2005 This is a whole lot of non sense, yes it's obviously a political attempt by what some consider the 4th branch of the government (the american media), to save face and lessen the political impact of the mishandled aftermath of the huricanne. Are the folks in New Orleans refugees? damn right they are...if we reason for a minute and stop listening to what larry King said last night on CNN you might come to the same conclusion. I coulda swore it was but a year ago the media was reffering to the sorry state of the refugees in Darfur, now whether those refugees actually left Sudan or whether they moved inside the country to a UN refugee camp, the differentiation was not made, and rightly so. Palestinians have been refugees within their own country for decades now, there are many refugee camps within the West bank and Gaza, some are refugees from decades old land seizures by the zionist and some are new arrivals from newer but equaly brutal policies. Should we now make up new words to define different circumstances with similar outcomes? When Ethiopians are fleing famine we see images of refugee camps on TV, now whether you're hungry due to a hurricane or a drought, it doesn't really change the fact that you're still hungry does it? "Evacuees"?....I had a good chuckle with that one, so what do you call those who left before the hurricance?....pre-evacuees? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
England girl Posted September 6, 2005 I think the correct term is INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLE....... there are actully millions of internally displaced people all over the world, and unfortunately they do not get the same internation recognition as refugees, as they can still find refuge in their own countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ariadne Posted September 6, 2005 I think if there is a whole page on why the New orleans refugees should not be called refugees... or what politer or softer word can be used for its subsitute.... Then that's how you know that political correctness is being carried to far here. oh and btw: reading what sheherazade posted sent goose bumps all over my body in just thinking about that question.... hats off to you little lady for raising that question... wow! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shyhem Posted September 6, 2005 THis folks are not refugees,they did not cross international boarders nor are they waiting help from the UN or seeking sharci from any other country. They just moved west of I-10 from Lousiana to Texas. and pretty soon they will back in new Orleans to celebrate Mardi gras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites