Jackson says 'refugee' is racist.

Published on September 7, 2005 By dharmagrl In Current Events

The Rev Jesse Jackson has said that calling the victims of Hurricane Katrine 'refugees' is racist.

He said that it implies they are 'second class citizens' and is 'racist'.

Apparently 'evacuees' or 'displaced' aren't appropriate terms either, because they're too clinical.

I'm in awe that we're even discussing such issues at a time like this. We have thousands, possibly tens of thousands people dead in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, hundreds of thousands of people destitute and in dire need of the basic necessities for life, an entire city nearly wiped out.... yet he's complaining about the terminology used to describe them?

Does he have nothing else to do except stir up crap?

Comments (Page 1)

Island Dog

on Sep 07, 2005

People who embrace Jackson and Sharpton are idiots.

dharmagrl

on Sep 07, 2005

People who embrace Jackson and Sharpton are idiots.

Yep. They are.

This is typical Jackson behaviour, IMO. He shows up, makes a lot of noise about things that are really insignificant compared to the real issue, and achieves....mostly nothing.

I wonder if any black people who lost everything in the hurricane minded being called 'refugees' before Jackson made a big deal about it. I would have thought that that would have been the least of their owrries....

Island Dog

on Sep 07, 2005

Plenty of people support Jackson, that's one of the first problems with the black "community".

dharmagrl

on Sep 07, 2005

Plenty of people support Jackson, that's one of the first problems with the black "community".

I hear that. Like I said, I wonder how many people had an issue with their 'refugee' title before he started in about it. I didn't happen to see jesse getting down and dirty in New Orleans, did you? he and Sharpton were noticeably absent last week when people were dying on street corners....

dharmagrl

on Sep 07, 2005

Someone really ought to hold that asshole down, stuff a sock in his mouth (preferably a dirty one thats been floating in the raw sewage and industrial waste of the New Orleans flood waters) and apply several rolls of duct tape.

Like I said, I'm in awe that it's even an issue right now. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have lost everything, yet he's bitching about a word.

Shows where his priorities really lie, IMO.

When are folks going to see him for what he really is - a blustering blowhard who's all mouth and no trousers?

shadesofgrey

on Sep 07, 2005

I don't know if it's racist, but it is a poor word choice.

The UN Definition of a refugee is: "A person who is outside his/her country of natinonality 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 protectin of that country or to return there, for fear of persecution."

By calling the evacuees "refugees" we are saying that they are not American--and they most certainly are. These people have lost everything--and if by changing a simple word choice we can help them retain a bit of dignity and pride (by making them "us", instead of "them.")than what harm does the word change cause?

Moderateman

on Sep 07, 2005

The UN Definition of a refugee is: "A person who is outside his/her country of natinonality or habitual residence

since their resiudence no longer excist, they fit the definition you put forth.

Jackson is an blackmailing thief and a divider of the races.

Manopeace

on Sep 07, 2005

Coming from someone that referred to New York as HymieTown, I wouldn't take anything Jackson says to seriously. The man is a moron.

Dr Guy

on Sep 07, 2005

By calling the evacuees "refugees" we are saying that they are not American--and they most certainly are.

Since when di the UN start defining our terms?

Main Entry: ref·u·gee
Pronunciation: "re-fyu-'jE
Function: noun
: an individual seeking refuge or asylum;

I would say they are seeking refuge. There is nothing in the term that implies racism or lack of nationality.

Manopeace

on Sep 07, 2005

I would say they are seeking refuge. There is nothing in the term that implies racism or lack of nationality.

I agree...this is happening too often Doc

Dr Guy

on Sep 07, 2005

the Webster's New World Dictionary defines it as "a person who flees from home or country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or of political or religious persecution."

shadesofgrey

on Sep 07, 2005

since their resiudence no longer excist, they fit the definition you put forth.

they don't, the definition reads (and I am adding the words to make it clear) "outside his or her country of nationliaty or country of habitual residence." The evacuees haven't left their country.

I *really* don't think they care what they're being referred to at the moment, being far more concerned with obtaining food, shelter, locating family members, etc etc...i think if you interviewed a thousand of them and asked which term they prefer, they'd look at you as if you were mad.

I completely agree--they wouldn't care and they have much greater concerns. I was simply pointing out that it is a poor word choice, and that it doesn't hurt us to use a better one.

Since when di the UN start defining our terms?

International aid organizations, including the Red Cross, tend to use the UN defnition over the defition on dictionary.com.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 07, 2005

"a person who flees from home or country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or of political or religious persecution."

I think the key there is "war or political or religious persecution."

dharmagrl

on Sep 07, 2005

These people have lost everything--and if by changing a simple word choice we can help them retain a bit of dignity and pride (by making them "us", instead of "them.")than what harm does the word change cause?

Why is he concerning himself with it now? Why create drama over a word when there's so much more going on that's more important? Why isn't he getting his hands dirty helping these people out? Where was he last week when his 'people' needed him? I didn't see him on the streets of NO or at the convention center.

since their resiudence no longer excist, they fit the definition you put forth.

That's what I think too.

In other words, I doubt its even an issue to THEM.

So, typical of revrend jessy, in he swoops creating an issue where there was none, transforming a mere lapse in proper semantics into a yet another stinking racial drama. Who can blame him though, thats how he makes his living.

By calling the use of the word "refugee" as racist, he also ignorantly negates the fact that these victims were of ALL races.

Exactly. Good point about the victims being of ALL races. I wonder what he's got to say about that? That it's ok to call white and hispanic victims refugees, just not black people?

The man is a moron.

That's never been in question.....the question is just how low can he go?

dharmagrl

on Sep 07, 2005

the Webster's New World Dictionary defines it as "a person who flees from home or country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or of political or religious persecution."

Okay.....so refugee IS an appropriate term, since these people ARE seeking refuge.

they don't, the definition reads (and I am adding the words to make it clear) "outside his or her country of nationliaty or country of habitual residence." The evacuees haven't left their country.

Does it really matter? If I had lost everything I owned and was destitute, I doubt that i would care what people called me.

It's all semantics, and it's semantics that are the bastion of political correctness.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!