PART III: REFUGEE VS EVACUEE

Jodi Dean I cite writes in response to PART II: REFUGEE VS EVACUEE

"Each term provides a site for critique. What is it to emptied, to be that which has been emptied out? We can think of the medical version of evacuation. And, the more obvious question and problem: doesn't our hesitation and fear of calling Americans refugees embody our own racist/colonialist/imperialist attitudes toward all those others who are somehow more properly named refugees?"

Yes. They are the refugee(d) and the evacuated. Also in the figurative sense of evacuate as in, "to deprive (a term, concept, etc.) of its contents or value."

A thought: On the refugee Agamben writes in Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life :

"If refugees (whose number has continued to grow in our century, to the point of including a significant part of humanity today) represent such a disquieting element in the order of the modern nation-state, this is above all by breaking the continuity between man and citizen, nativity and nationality, they put the originary fiction of modern sovereignity in crisis. Bringing to light the difference between birth and nation, the refugee causes the secret presupposition of the political domain ––bare life––to appear for an instant within that domain. In this sense, the refugee is truly the "man of rights," as Arendt suggests, the first and only real appearance of rights outside the fiction of the citizen that always covers them over."