Some Want Refugee Word to Be Racist

Yes, I agree, that would be far better than letting them - meaning the race mongers who've made this an issue - demand that we change the meaning of words to fit their personal definitions and agenda. The word "refugee" has been in use for generations to define persons forced by tragedy to leave their homes to seek refuge elsewhere. Using this word to define their situation in no way demeans them as people nor suggests any lack of concern for helping them. The response to the needs of the refugees from this natural disaster has been overwhelming from many Americans. Race mongers are not needed, nor should they be welcomed, to interfere with providing generous help by polarizing people through silly redefinition of long accepted and understood words.

 

Some of the survivors have stayed and some have become refugees.

 

We should, indeed, give thanks to the Lord that this disaster was not worse than it has been. We should pray that He will spare our loved ones of such things in the days to come. We need His continued blessings because, relative to what could happen, this disaster is minimal. Reading Revelations will remind us of how bad things will become some day by both the judgement of God through both nature and mankind.

 

Thanks for the reminder to have a good laugh from time to time! I certainly have to admit that I need it and, it seem, more often as I get older.

 

Those are some good points Daisy! I appreciate the legal dictionary definition of the word and your thoughts on the subject. I frequently don't agree with your view points but I do respect your opinions and your ability to express them.

The hardships of war and persecution have created many refugees and that's a meaning that could be concluded from the word in certain context. The Immigration & Naturalization Service, for example, in accordance with the U.S. Code defines a refugee as "... an alien unwilling to return to his or her country of origin ..." which is completely in line with the second part of the legal definition you've provided.

Here, restated but with my emphasis instead, is the definition you provided:

Everyone knows the people in New Orleans are either American citizens, residents, or visitors with the majority being citizens. No one thought of them as people fleeing a country to get away from persecution just to place themselves here in harm's way. No one considered them less important than any others up and down the Gulf Coast effected by the hurricane. Everyone knows these people are not seeking political asylum.

The context of the usage is, rather, the first meaning given for the word to which I've given emphasis in the legal dictionary definition.

Of course, if the word "refugee" has a negative connotation even in the second meaning, then that connotation would apply to those for whom the word were "legitimately" used. We would then have to "look down" on a "refugee" who was fleeing from persecution and seeking asylum in our country. In this case, I know several persons rather well that I would have to "look down" upon for their prior status in life.

The word, in this case, would not be the problem but, rather, the attitude of the person using it. Therein is the real problem with words!

Many words have more than one meaning and there are common meanings and technical meanings within various professions.

"Evacuee" is not even defined, from what I can find, by either Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law or Black's Law Dictionary. Perhaps it is a relatively new legal term? It is commonly defined as "a person who has been evacuated from a dangerous place" so that does fit the definition of the refugees from Hurricane Katrina. I don't recall this word being used much before but I could be wrong about that as it might be a regional matter. There is no reason to use a new word to redefine something that already has an acceptable word or to stop using an acceptable word because a new one has been created.

Consider that "victim", for example, is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "The person who is the object of a crime or tort, ..." and doesn't mention other meanings of the word in common use. The people harmed by this natural disaster could certainly be called "victims" of it even though this particular legal definition might not associate that cause with the consequence. The meaning depends upon the context.

The point I'm making is that, regardless of dictionary or legal dictionary definitions, "refugee" has been used for generations and is clearly understood by common people in the proper context. It has been used in our country to describe people seeking refuge from the consequences of natural and man-made disasters. It never has had a negative connotation when used to describe our own citizens or residents.

The further point, is that this issue was raised by race mongers who frequently seek to turn events into matters of race when they are not. They desire to agitate those they seek as followers in order to give themselves a continued base of power which they do not merit.

That, more than anything else, is reason enough not to accept their redefinition of this word. To do so, would concede they are correct in their agenda which is to discredit the rescue operation as being driven by racial preferences.

If I believed, or could be convinced, that the majority of reasonable people who are being called "refugee" truly felt offended by it of their own accord and not by the instigation of race mongers, then I would consider not using it even though it has long been used in a perfectly acceptable manner.