>Well, a lot of 'em went from Looziana to Texas and some even came here
>to Massachusetts. Whaddya call that!
>Chuck Norcutt
Er, "Internally displaced persons"
>From: Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
>Whether one is a "refugee" or an "internally displaced person" makes no
>difference when the one is you.
>Walt
No, it certainly doesn't. And in my professional experience with people who
were displaced internationally or domestically it was the stupidest distinction
they'd ever heard. Highly educated people I worked with in Bosnia used to look
at me like I had four-heads when I tried to explain it. We used to tell all
the municipal officials to all the IDPs in the USAID funded project, so we
could put all the "refugees" in the UNHCR project, because the UN project
wouldn't take people who hadn't crossed a border. Sigh.
Anyway, if US govt officials started calling all these people "refugees" then
there'd be a big fuss about what they were trying to imply and were they
suggesting that the UNHCR ought to be helping and blah blah blah. I'm no fan
of Bush, but "They're not refugees" is kind-of a no-win situation for him.
There is meant to be a political implication, btw, with defining refugees only
as those who have crossed a border. Generally, when there is a natural
disaster such as drought, earthquake, hurricane, etc. people don't cross a
border. But they do cross borders when they are fleeing for their safety
because of war or persecution. In otherwords, those seeking "refuge" are
different from those who have simply been "displaced." So, as silly as the
distinction is to many people, there is a reason for it.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|