Jackson says 'refugee' is racist.

from JoeUser Forums

Link

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?

 

 

 

6,211 views 45 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
People who embrace Jackson and Sharpton are idiots.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

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....

 

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Plenty of people support Jackson, that's one of the first problems with the black "community".
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
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....
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Coming from someone that referred to New York as HymieTown, I wouldn't take anything Jackson says to seriously. The man is a moron.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
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
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
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."
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"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."
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jesse Jackson has gotten rich ensuring that racism continues. His greatest fear and worst enemy are those of us who don't have anything in particular against people of different races. We might cost him his gravy train.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Really, its not like all these white leaders and media reporters got together and had a meeting about how they could advance their racist causes by referring to the victims as refugees rather than evacuees or even deepees, (displaced persons.)

Oh, but it's a 'Great White Conspiracy'....'Da Man' decided that he'd make the victims feel like second class citizens by calling them 'refugees'.  All of us crackers had it planned out in advance.....just another way of keeping his people down, ya dig?

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Jesse Jackson has gotten rich ensuring that racism continues. His greatest fear and worst enemy are those of us who don't have anything in particular against people of different races. We might cost him his gravy train.

I have to say that he and 'Waste Of Flesh' Sharpton do a remarkably good job of keeping prejudice alive and well.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

You left out the clause leader - as in. As in examples.  We are not asking the International agencies to treat them as refugees, we will take care of them.  But they are still seeking refuge from the storm, and hence are refugees.  And laast I checked, they are red, black, white, brown and yellow refugees.  So is it racist because there are no purple blue and green ones?

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


I'm not a Jesse Jackson supporter, and I'm not going to try to get inside of his mind and figure out why he does what he does. I was simply pointing out that it is not the best word to use in this case. Last Wednesday, someone told Wolff Biltzer (I don't remember who) that he should be saying evacuees instead of refugees and he made the change immediately.

I understand being annoyed with Jackson--but I don't get the uproar about changing the terms we use to be more accurate.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
But they are still seeking refuge from the storm, and hence are refugees. And laast I checked, they are red, black, white, brown and yellow refugees. So is it racist because there are no purple blue and green ones?


I DID NOT say that it was racist--that was Jesse Jackson.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Parish or county
White
Black
Jefferson, La.
69.8%
22.9%
Orleans, La.
28.1%
67.3%
Plaquemines, La.
69.8%
23.4%
St. Bernard, La.
88.3%
7.6%
St. Tammany, La.
87.0%
9.9%
Hancock, Miss.
90.2%
6.8%
Harrison, Miss.
73.1%
21.1%
Jackson, Miss.
75.4%
20.9%

 

Note the percent of Black and white, and that they dont add up to 100%.  That is because it is only showing those 2 races, and not brown, red and yellow.  Now, you can link to the respective censuses right from the table above, or you can take my word for it that there are a lot more White People who are now homeless (evacuees or refugees) than black people, so how does that make it a racist statement?

Perhaps if an Asian uses it since there are so few of them in the group?

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
it would only be racism if we just used that word for black refugees. Given ALL races are being called refugees, and the word itself has no relation to 'blackness', his point is moot.

Jackson is an ignorant ass, and I can't understand why the press keeps printing his irrelevant opinions.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
so how does that make it a racist statement?


who are you asking? No one here is saying that it is racist--only Jesse Jackson said that and I would venture a guess that Jackson doesn't read Dharma's blog (he should, though )
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently he thinks "Refugees" and "Evacuees" are races of people. Doesn't suprise me, considering he is a mindless bigot who lines his pockets by making everything all about race. He'd gladly watch slaves get whipped as long as it feeds the kitty. He'd probably even provide the whip... but of course he would never crack the whip himself, that would require effort.