For the last two days, I’ve been following the ongoing discussion about linguistic appropriateness in regards to Katrina coverage, specifically, the use of the word ‘refugee.’ Apparently the Rev. Jesse Jackson feels the word is racist – ‘It is racist to call American citizens refugees,’ he claimed – but for the life of me, I can’t see why.

As a person who latches on to slight connotations of words in order to make a point, I can understand when a word may or may not offend. The point of language is to evolve, to constantly adapt to meet the changing needs of a culture. Take words like ‘pimp,’ for instance. While this four-letter common noun still has seedy, horrible undertones of a forced sex trade, that would now appear a perhaps definition number four on the list, behind

1 interj. an exclamation of approval (‘that’s so pimp’)

2 v.tr. to improve to the point of transcendence (MTV’s Pimp my Ride)

3 n. a attractive person, typically male, very successful in coupling with members of the opposite sex (or the same sex too, I suppose)

Only then do we find the ‘traditional’ definition of ‘pimp’ in the popular consciousness.

The point is that words take on new meanings as they are implicitly assigned by majority opinion and usage. Reclaiming the definition of ‘pimp’ to ones with more positive connotations would be an example of this upward shift in usage.

However, when a major public figure like Jackson suddenly assigns negative connotation to a word – a subtext that, I would argue, did not previously exist – because the majority of those affected by Katrina are black, he does the English language the disservice of losing that word forever. Those displaced in the Dust Bowl of the 1930s (who were mostly white, mind you) were termed ‘refugees.’ According to my trusty unabridged Webster’s Third, definition number one is ‘one that flees to a place of safety.’

I would say that applies here. Some of the substitutes used by an Associated Press that has partially caved to Jackson’s ridiculous request of ceasing to use the word – including the Washington Post, the Miami Herald and the Boston Globe - include ‘evacuee,’ ‘survivor’ and ‘displaced,’ none of which have the correct connotations. At least the AP, in general, is ‘continuing to use the word where it is deemed appropriate,’ according to the New York Times.

This entire debate will disappear relatively soon, as the New Orleans refugees are re-settled and sheltered elsewhere – they’ll cease to become refugees, and will become residents of other cities. So, needless to say, I’ll continue to use the word – when appropriate, with a nod to the AP – without regard for imagined racial implications. That’s pretty pimp of me, I’d say.

Additional fodder for the argument: Slate just posted a story today with the tag ‘My second week as a refugee.’ The author refers to his doctoral internship and the Montessori day-care center for his one-year-old, so draw whatever socio-politico-ethno conclusions you want.

Song of the Day: ‘Refugee,’ Tom Petty. Hey, it’s a good song. And it’s appropriate. It don’t make no difference to me, baby. Everybody’s had to fight to be free. You see, you don’t have to live like a refugee.