I have read the guidance from the National Association of Black Journalists and, frankly, I don’t get it.
The NABJ, of which I am a member, published a memo on Tuesday intended to guide news organizations on “the language used to describe victims” of Hurricane Katrina and its catastrophic aftermath.
Specifically, it offered guidance on the word “refugee,” cautioning against its use and urging editors to employ instead what a press release described as “more accurate terms such as ‘evacuees,’ ‘victims’ or ‘survivors.’”
The group said several news organizations, including The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, The Boston Globe and National Public Radio, had “chosen to avoid such language.” Others, including The New York Times and The Associated Press, were said by the AP to be “continuing to use the word where it is deemed appropriate.” The Tribune has not adopted a formal position on the matter but informally seems to be tending toward the use of “evacuee.”
Leaving aside whether the NABJ’s suggested alternatives really do more accurately describe what reporters and editors have been trying to communicate with the word “refugees,” I find myself astonished at the hubbub that has blown up around this particular word. Especially when there were others widely applied in the Katrina coverage that were, arguably, more incendiary.
Indeed, as I write this column, the “refugee” brouhaha seems to be more a subject of conversation than the newest problematic term in the Katrina coverage, “blame game,” which the White House is using as a pejorative alternative for what it has been pleased in other circumstances to call “accountability.”
The NABJ wasn’t alone in taking exception to the use of “refugee.” The Congressional Black Caucus also did. And Rev. Jesse Jackson was quoted by The Associated Press as saying during a visit to the Houston Astrodome, “It is racist to call American citizens refugees.”
Precisely how he arrived at that conclusion Jackson didn’t say. But if the implication is that Americans cannot be sent fleeing from fires, floods, famine and other disasters, natural or manmade, or from political oppression, then it is plainly untrue.
Happily, it doesn’t happen often nowadays, but check your history books under “Dust Bowl” and “Great Migration.” The Dust Bowl phenomenon during the 1930s sent hundreds of thousands of refugees–mainly whites–to the American West from the economically wrung-out plains of Oklahoma, north Texas, Kansas and adjacent states. The Great Migration of blacks from south to north that began during World War I also was a refugee phenomenon–people seeking refuge from social, political and economic oppression.
It is particularly surprising to hear Jackson making the argument against “refugees” in terms of American exceptionalism, because part of what has made him such an effective participant in this country’s political debates of the last few decades has been his ability to puncture notions of American exceptionalism. He flummoxes opponents by demonstrating that Americans are subject to the same temptations and moral failings as others, no matter how hard we try to paper them over with euphemisms and alternative language.
The NABJ asserts that “refugee” is applied most often to people seeking political refuge, and it noted that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has even adopted a formal definition of the word that turns on the issue of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion …”
Suffice to say in response, however, that most readers probably rely on a simpler definition, like that found in Webster’s: “a person who flees from home or country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or political or religious persecution.”
At best, “evacuee” gets to half of that meaning and carries the additional burden of sounding passive. “Survivor” and “victim” speak to other issues entirely and are in no way synonyms for “refugee.”
The strongest argument against “refugee” now is that the moment when it could be apt in the Katrina context has passed. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t appropriate early on. And it would be a shame if American news organizations shied away from using a perfectly legitimate and descriptive word for bad reasons.
