a few days ago a caller said displaced new orleanians shouldn't be called "refugees."
i don't recall if i heard it on washington journal or talk of the nation, but i think my first reaction was "huh?" so i checked a dictionary. the definition was "one who flees for safety." it gave "to escape political oppression or war" as examples of causes of the flight, but it also gave "danger."
the caller was a phobic bush defender who seemed to think the word "refugee" was being used by liberals to make georgie-boy look bad.
yesterday the sainted leader himself took up the refrain, so i guess it may've been repeated and amplified by the gop noise machine: "they're not refugees! they're americans!" he said emphatically, as if the two categories are mutually exclusive.
can't we get some rationality into the rhetoric?
of course they're americans.
they're also refugees.
1 day ago
they're refugees, as is anybody running away from a dangerous situation.
ReplyDelete"generally speaking"? even a wife who leaves a brutal husband is a refugee -- from domestic violence.
don't say "generally" when you get so specific as to limit it to 3 examples. "as in" essentially means "for example." general is extended.