"The people we're talking about are not refugees. They are Americans," Bush stated. (Reuters)
Let us examine what is happening here.
First, let's break down that word "refugee." Its root is, of course, refuge. From the Latin refugium, "to escape," refuge is defined by Merriam-Webster as "shelter or protection from danger or distress/a place that provides shelter or protection." Thus, a refugee is an individual seeking shelter or protection from danger or distress.
Bush's argument for the rejection of "refugee" is Claim/Warrant A (individuals fleeing Katrina's damage /{ 'refugees' but individuals fleeing Katrina's damage {'Americans') is fallacious for a few reasons:
1. The rejection implies class 'refugees' and 'Americans' are parallel and mutually exclusive. Not so on either point.
a) Class 'Refugees' refers to all humans who are currently fleeing in search of shelter or protection. This is a conditional, behavior-contingent class. Class 'Americans' refers to humans who are citizens of the United States (colloquially). This is a nonconditional, politically-defined class. Thus they are not parallel.
b) It is fully possible to be both an American and a refugee. Indeed, by definition, American women who seek anonymous protection and shelter from domestic violence in facilities designed for this purpose are humans seeking refuge, and thus members of class 'Refugee.' They do not abandon their citizenship upon entrance of the home (and in fact become members of class 'Refugees' the moment they seek refuge; whether they find it or not is inconsequential). Thus class 'Refugees' and class 'Americans' are not mutually exclusive classes.
2. Hurricane Katrina evacuees are, by definition, members of class 'Refugees.' See above.
3. It is most certainly the case that several if not thousands of Katrina refugees/evacuees are not Americans at all, but citizens of a foreign country. Thus warrant 'They are Americans' to claim 'They are not refugees' lacks the required backing to be valid. That is, to say, unless Bush has unilaterally inferred citizenship upon those foreign nationals who are currently fleeing the damage.
One little statement. So many problems. (And before you post... yes, I realize Rev. Jesse Jackson has taken umbrage with the attribution of class 'Refugees' as well, but his argument isn't a logical claim, like Bush's -- it's a pathos claim contingent on perceptual meaning of the word 'refugee.' A similar example would be Nixon's "I am not a crook" which did not make a claim of innocence but rather an argument against the rhetoric inherent in the loaded term, 'crook.')
Let us examine what is happening here.
First, let's break down that word "refugee." Its root is, of course, refuge. From the Latin refugium, "to escape," refuge is defined by Merriam-Webster as "shelter or protection from danger or distress/a place that provides shelter or protection." Thus, a refugee is an individual seeking shelter or protection from danger or distress.
Bush's argument for the rejection of "refugee" is Claim/Warrant A (individuals fleeing Katrina's damage /{ 'refugees' but individuals fleeing Katrina's damage {'Americans') is fallacious for a few reasons:
1. The rejection implies class 'refugees' and 'Americans' are parallel and mutually exclusive. Not so on either point.
a) Class 'Refugees' refers to all humans who are currently fleeing in search of shelter or protection. This is a conditional, behavior-contingent class. Class 'Americans' refers to humans who are citizens of the United States (colloquially). This is a nonconditional, politically-defined class. Thus they are not parallel.
b) It is fully possible to be both an American and a refugee. Indeed, by definition, American women who seek anonymous protection and shelter from domestic violence in facilities designed for this purpose are humans seeking refuge, and thus members of class 'Refugee.' They do not abandon their citizenship upon entrance of the home (and in fact become members of class 'Refugees' the moment they seek refuge; whether they find it or not is inconsequential). Thus class 'Refugees' and class 'Americans' are not mutually exclusive classes.
2. Hurricane Katrina evacuees are, by definition, members of class 'Refugees.' See above.
3. It is most certainly the case that several if not thousands of Katrina refugees/evacuees are not Americans at all, but citizens of a foreign country. Thus warrant 'They are Americans' to claim 'They are not refugees' lacks the required backing to be valid. That is, to say, unless Bush has unilaterally inferred citizenship upon those foreign nationals who are currently fleeing the damage.
One little statement. So many problems. (And before you post... yes, I realize Rev. Jesse Jackson has taken umbrage with the attribution of class 'Refugees' as well, but his argument isn't a logical claim, like Bush's -- it's a pathos claim contingent on perceptual meaning of the word 'refugee.' A similar example would be Nixon's "I am not a crook" which did not make a claim of innocence but rather an argument against the rhetoric inherent in the loaded term, 'crook.')
Current Mood: 
nerdy
nerdy
Leave a comment