"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:U0DTe.315756$_o.224968@attbi_s71...
We booked our first refugees at the Inn yesterday --

Ya gotta watch more CNN, Jay.

The African-American leaders and the US government are very adamant about
NOT calling the displaced persons as "refugees", but insist on "evacuee",
or some such word.

They seem to feel that "refugee" somehow diminishes the status of these
people.

I am wondering, however, that if that is so, then why is it okay to call
the Sri Lankan, Thai (and other displacements of natural and man-made
disasters) as "refugees"?

Does that not diminish *their* status?

Merriam-Webster: "refugee: one that flees; especially: a person who flees to
a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution". What's being
objected to is the connotation of having fled from a foreign country;
obviously, that connotation is not objectionable in situations where people
really do flee internationally.

I don't think the terminology is worth obsessing over. But still less is
anyone's obsession over it worth obsessing over.

--Gary