I don't often disagree with Clayton Cramer, but he recently posted that New Orleans' refugees should be helping more and relieving soldiers and I don't think that would work very well.
As I was watching news coverage of the rescue operations, I was struck by something: how much of the labor moving water and food was being done by soldiers. I know that many of those who were stuck in New Orleans were elderly, and others are just children, but why don't we see large numbers of these refugees involved in moving relief supplies? This is just a little disturbing. You might almost get the impression that the reason so many were stuck in New Orleans when the hurricane hit was a certain unwillingness to do anything for themselves.
In this case, I think there are several factors at work preventing more refugee involvement.
1. The soldiers know how to work with each other and with their vehicles and equipment.
2. How could one determine which refugees were trustworthy to take possession of supplies and distribute them?
3. The refugees often have entire families to care for with no home and no communication.
4. The refugees are generally the least educated, least able-bodied ex-citizens of the city, and probably the least capable of assisting with relief efforts.
So, I agree with the sentiment, but I think it would be a short matter of time before refugee volunteers started falling out of helicopters, getting crushed under trucks, or absconding with supplies. In fact, Mr. Cramer posted earlier on the reasons some people didn't evacuate.
There's a lot of reasons.Some career criminals didn't leave, I suspect, because they were looking forward to the chance to loot the city.
I would expect that many of the mentally ill (of which New Orleans, like any big city, has a lot) did not leave because they either didn't get the message, or were too fearful to accept transportation even if it had been offered.
Some stayed because they were hospitalized.
Some stayed because they didn't see any need for it--New Orleans has been hit by hurricanes before.
...
Enjoy reading your blog.
Not to be too picky, but by definition, a refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
Last time I checked, Lousiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida etc are all in the United States. Evacuee or displaced person would be more appropriate/accurate.
Gin: refugee: "One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution."
There's no need to cross a national boundary.
Jesse Jackson is getting into the refugee discussion: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9232071/
Ok Michael.
The definition is specific (per the Mac OS X dictionary). If you wish to change it, fine. I am more careful not to use words that are inappropriate.
Per that definition (which I quoted), leaving a country is NOT conditional.
Merriam-Webster is slightly different, leaving some room: one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution
Regardless, other terms would be far more fitting. "Evacuee" is accurate. ("a person evacuated from a place of danger to somewhere safe")
Why does this matter?
Frankly, I suspect some use the word refugee to manipulate, create an illusion, make the story even more dramatic-sounding, or even more partisan; e.g.,that folks in New Orleans going to the Republican Texas are really going to a "different country". Even worse, New Orleans residents have been "persecuted" by the "evil Bush administration".
Facts and reality become less important, even irrelevant to some. Emotion-driven statements and reporting with ulterior, selfish motives - that is what I am seeing (particularly from the local and state governments in LA and most media).
You know what many of our fellow citizens (esp progressives/liberals/democrats) say and have said. Would you be surprised?
Again, I enjoy your blog. I offer constructive criticism to those I respect.
A good column that helps explain some of what I am saying, and , sadly, hints at what I believe is to come:
http://nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/buckley/buckley200509061810.asp
back on topic, why not pay these people to clean up their own city, under supervision of course. tax dollars (my dollars) are being spent to house and feed them while they sit on their hands. yet more dollars are going to be spent to pay someone else to clean up new orleans. the workers will have to be housed and feed so why not use the same resources to house, feed and pay the able bodied residents to clean up and rebuild their own city. it would cut our tax burden almost in half for labor during the clean up and allow these "poor" people to earn some cash to help them get back on their feet. some might balk at the idea as it might mess up their "check".
Gin: Hm, I guess I don't see any of the connotations you're attributing to the word. The key component of "refugee" is that they don't have anywhere to go back to, whereas "evacuee" is more like they've had to temporarily be moved to safety. I don't really see it as a political issue at all.
william: I like that idea a lot, but I doubt there are enough qualified people among the uh, refugees to do the rebuilding.