Of Course 'Kemosabe' Used To Discriminate

[maplesyrup]

`Kemosabe' complaint may go to top court

Another put down of our First Nations people by whity.

What were those NS courts thinking with their absurd ruling?

Of course it was being used in a rascist and discriminatory way and the Supreme Court should take it on and throw the book at those white sickos, the Muellers.

[August1991]

Another put down of our First Nations people by whity.

Your use of the term "whity" is offensive.

[kimmy]

I'm reading the article and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out, if she didn't like being called "Kemosabe", why didn't she tell them to quit calling her that?

As the article says, "Kemosabe" is not in itself racist. There's a racial connotation, which could (depending on the situation) be offensive.

Here's what I'd compare it to: I have a friend of Chinese descent who I often play basketball with. Suppose I start referring to her as "Yao", in honor of Chinese NBA star Yao Ming.

-calling her Yao is not discriminatory... it's quite a compliment in fact.

-however, it's obviously a reference to race... I obviously wouldn't be calling her that if she weren't Chinese. I should probably know better than to make reference to someone's race needlessly... at the very least, it's not polite.

-but, I don't believe that not being polite in itself is grounds for a lawsuit or human rights complaint. I believe there's some onus on my friend to tell me she doesn't like it, or as the article put it, "object vociferously."

-if my friend objects vociferously, and I keep calling her Yao, then clearly I'm trying to harrass her. And if I was her employer instead of her basketball opponent, then I'd be on the road to some kind of complaint for creating a hostile work environment.

I feel that we're not being told the whole story here. Relations between the Mullers and Moore must have been extremely poor for her to quit her job and take them to court, particularly since Moore herself testifies that she had "not vociferously objected to Kemosabe".

I find the ruling reported in the article makes perfect sense:

The Appeal Court accepted the inquiry's conclusions that it wasn't dealing with a word "which was clearly on its face notoriously offensive."

It also said that because the word wasn't overtly racist, there was an onus on Moore to "clearly and unequivocally" show her disapproval.

I feel that the Human Rights Commission's own lawyer makes an argument in support of it:

"In this case the court said if the word isn't notoriously offensive, then there's a greater burden on the complainant to voice their objection. But our question is: how does an individual know if a word is notoriously offensive? If they find it offensive, how do they know if everybody else does?"

How are people to know a word is offensive if they're not told? Perhaps the Mullers should know better than to call a native person "Kemosabe", but how are they supposed to learn that it's not appreciated if nobody tells them?

-kim'o'sabe

[maplesyrup]

Another put down of our First Nations people by whity.

Your use of the term "whity" is offensive.

Tough!

Kimmy.......you obviously don't have much experience in life. There is a power dynamic between employer and employee with the employer holding all the cards obviously, as the courts when the issue was brought to their attention sided with the employer in a despicable ruling. Had the employee spoken up the employee would have been fired. Sounds like that place should be unionized by the CAW or some other progressive union.

[daniel]

Many years ago, I asked my boss, who was a black man (he still it a black man), why blacks prefer to refer to themselves as black instead of negro.

I explained the "negro" is a legitimate English word that describes one's race, like Asian, or Caucasian. Describing oneself as black is describing the colour of his skin, a visual trait.

He said that the term negro has bad connotation because it derives n*gg*r. Using the term black turns the visual trait from negative perception to a positive proactive one.

Much like "Gay pride."

So if that K word was ever legitimate, it apparantly, so we learn now, brings negative connotations. Reminding the First Nations people of the stereotyping back in the days of the Lone Ranger where a native plays subservient to his white cowboy master, who is of the people who took over his land.

[I miss Reagan]

This is insane. Kimosabe means trusted friend. It's loud mouthed whiners who have driven political correctness to the same radical levels of lawsuits for spilling hot coffee. Where I live there is/was a mountain named Chinaman's Peak. They renamed it "Ha Ling Peak" because somhow refering to someones national heritage is offensive. Oddly the valley below the mountain was and is still officially named "White Man's Gap".

[daniel]

I bet you didn't know that the word Chinaman was derogatory too. That's why it was changed. Others argued to keep the name to remind us all of the Chinese people who sacrificed their lives in Canada's racist past.

The new name is in recognition of the man who climbed it on a dare.

If you want to rename "White Man's Gap" put in your proposal and let the authorities hear the arguments fore and against.

[I miss Reagan]

Who decided it was derogatory? It kinda reminds me of a couple of dumb guys (or should I say intellectually challenged) I knew. One of them would make a benign comment to the other and a somewhat sadistic third guy would say to the other "woa, are you going to take that". You could see the fire building up in the other guys face. Then an all out brawl would begin. It reminds me of the champions of PCness and organization like the ACLU. People aren't offended until some liberal white guy comes in with an agenda and gets everyone all pissed off.

Why not change the name of "White mans gap" to David Thomson Gap? because it's absurd. Who in their right mind would be offended by that. Likewise I don't think Chinese people were losing sleep at night because there was a mountain named Chinaman's Peak, I know the Chinese people I know weren't.

I don't want to hurt anyones feelings, and if someone told me they were offended by something I'd certainly do my best to not do it again but I think it's out of control. Some people are just too sensitive. And just a note, referring to African Americans as "black" is now politically incorrect too.

[kimmy]

If Moore had expressed her view that Kemosabe is offensive to her, she would have my support here. If you're at work and your employer keeps calling you something that you've told them not to, then your employer is an ASS. Nobody should need to be harrassed or insulted by their employer. If Moore tells them she doesn't like it, and they continue to call her that, or fire her or something, then she's got a case when she goes to employment standards or human rights.

But she didn't tell them. The article says so. The ruling says there was an onus for her to voice her disapproval. That's not a dispicable ruling, it is the most logical thing I have heard from a court in years.

And geez, Syrup, this is "Play it Again Sports", not General Electric or Time-Warner. I don't think a used sporting-goods shop exactly has the judiciary and media under their control.

I do not like to be called "Blondie". It is not overtly offensive; I do not expect people to know that I dislike it, so I tell them so. If somebody calls me Blondie, I firmly ask them not to. In almost all cases this solves the problem immediately; one time I had to (literally) step on some toes to get the point across.

-kimmy

[Argus]

Another put down of our First Nations people by whity.

Hmm, using a racist term to complain about racism. Yes, very logical.

What were those NS courts thinking with their absurd ruling?

As usual, your argument lacks even the slightest element of common sense, logic or law. It is entirely emotional.

This shallow, sheltered, easily offended young woman has already cost us a fortune in legal fees, and the idiots pushing this case want to cost us more. Gee, how about we have a Royal Commission to investigate Keemosabism and its perspective in relation to constitutional issues? Maybe we could establish a department of Keemosabi affairs, and have it dole out hundreds of millions to those traumatized victims who have been called keemosabi?

The old guy who owned the sporting goods stores had a habit of referring to people, mostly white people, as keemosabi. Much like other people use the term "man" or "guy" or "pal". Instead of telling him it offended her this moronic woman ran down to the human rights commision just a wailing and a whining and a sobing all over. How typically Canadian.

[Argus]

Kimmy.......you obviously don't have much experience in life.

Hahahahah! Hohohohohohoh! Heheheheheheheh!

You know, some days I suspect we're going to discover you're really a cynic named Harry posing as a painfully earnest, hopelessly self-righteous teenager with no life experience just having us all on.

[caesar]

Tough!

Kimmy.......you obviously don't have much experience in life. There is a power dynamic between employer and employee with the employer holding all the cards obviously, as the courts when the issue was brought to their attention sided with the employer in a despicable ruling. Had the employee spoken up the employee would have been fired. Sounds like that place should be unionized by the CAW or some other progressive union.

Give us a break. If she didn't like being called kemosabe; she should have said so. It is in no way racist; it meant friend in the original source nothing derogatory. She just wanted an excuse to quit. Unless, they persisted in calling her a name she didn't like; she has nothing to cry about.

[daniel]

...Some people are just too sensitive...

That is your opinion alone which also shows disrespect.

Some people don't want to talk about the war (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korean etc). Some people don't want to talk about the Holocaust or the Nanking Massacre. Some people don't like the term Chinaman's peak.

Then amongst the same peer groups, some people don't mind talking about the War, the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking or care less about the name Chinaman's Peak.

As far as I know, being insensitive is not a human right. But when one chooses to be insensitive in front of an audience he knows takes particular offence, that is provocation for which I will not take part.

[kimmy]

Some people don't want to talk about the war (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korean etc).  Some people don't want to talk about the Holocaust or the Nanking Massacre.  Some people don't like the term Chinaman's peak.

Then amongst the same peer groups, some people don't mind talking about the War, the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking or care less about the name Chinaman's Peak.

So, how are people to know whether one can or can't talk about these things? As the court said, if it's not overtly offensive, there's an onus on the individual to express his discomfort.

As far as I know, being insensitive is not a human right.

How could it not be? People might not have the right to deliberately harrass people, but I don't see how any person is not entitled to possess any particular character flaw, including insensitivity. How can one legislate personality?

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

So, how are people to know whether one can or can't talk about these things? As the court said, if it's not overtly offensive, there's an onus on the individual to express his discomfort.

Yea and get fired in the process. Get real - it was a racist decision by the NS court. Thank goodness there is going to be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

A large part of the problem with provincial jurisdiction is that the decisions made are very provincial in nature, and usually quite behind the times. Hopefully the average Canadian has progressed more than the dinasaurs in NS courts.

[Slavik44]

I used to work with a guy he would swear at me and call me stupid all the time. Finally one day I told him if he didn't stop he would end up in an ambulance,a nd yes for the msot part he did stop, he was still a jerk so the odd insult escaped but I would turn right around give it right back to him. Now while he wasn't my boss he was in-charge of me, I am pretty sure when he called me a F*cking dumb *ss he didn't mean it in a positive or even light hearted manner, however I still had to tell him that I would hospitalize him if he didn't stop. Having worked with a pathetic jerk like the one above, I woudl expect that anyone in a simlar situation if they were truly offended would have gotten fairly angry if they were truly offended. Which really leads me to conclude that

1) the person wasn't as offended as they sound

2) the Boss had no way of knowing the person was truly offended.

As personally I would take kemosabe over F*cking Dumb *ss any day.

[Argus]

As far as I know, being insensitive is not a human right. But when one chooses to be insensitive in front of an audience he knows takes particular offence, that is provocation for which I will not take part.

The newest addition to the Canadian Charter.

All people are to be protected against being offended, however milldly, however inadvertantly, by the full power of government.

Maybe we could put people like her on a special reserve, where no one who wasn't heavily PC would be allowed to go. She could be guaranteed to never be offended by harsh, insulting, offensive or discouraging words.

We could put Maplesyrup in with her.

[daniel]

The newest addition to the Canadian Charter.

All people are to be protected against being offended, however milldly, however inadvertantly, by the full power of government.

Maybe we could put people like her on a special reserve, where no one who wasn't heavily PC would be allowed to go.

Your logic is backwards. Being insensitive is NOT a human right.

If the newest addition to the Charter is to protect people from being offended, then the offender(s) are the ones to be sent to special reserves.

[daniel]

So, how are people to know whether one can or can't talk about these things? As the court said, if it's not overtly offensive, there's an onus on the individual to express his discomfort.

How could it not be? People might not have the right to deliberately harrass people, but I don't see how any person is not entitled to possess any particular character flaw, including insensitivity. How can one legislate personality?

-kimmy

Where have you been in the past twenty years? You'll find out quickly enough if someone doesn't want to talk about a certain subject.

Continuing to pester someone about it can become harrassment and if it's in the job environment can mean some sort of disciplinary action. If you don't believe me, try it.

And you're saying being insensitivity IS a human right? I disagree.

[daniel]

And just a note, referring to African Americans as "black" is now politically incorrect too.

Proves my point. Meanings change over time just as "Kemosabe" may have one time not been offensive.

[August1991]

Your logic is backwards. Being insensitive is NOT a human right.  If the newest addition to the Charter is to protect people from being offended, then the offender(s) are the ones to be sent to special reserves.

Daniel, being insensitive is a fundamental right. You are insensitive every time you refuse someone's request or offer.

Do you have to explain why you quit a job? Should you be held accountable for your choices in a grocery store? You have a fundamental right to refuse to do something - and you should not have to explain why you refused.

The best protection against racist idiots is not to sue them or to take them before a human rights tribual. The best protection is to ignore them.

IOW, our best protection against idiots is to be able to cross the street and go elsewhere. Racism and sexism and other forms of prejudice are a problem when there is no other choice. A racist cop is a serious matter. A racist landlord is merely an idiot.

The Charter of Rights should protect us against racist cops. It need not protect us against racist landlords. If the Charter is used to protect us against landlords, it will lead to numerous contradictory decisions that invariably will become arbitrary.

----

IMV, the changing terms of coloured people, negros, blacks, and now African-Americans reflect an effort to gain respect. I don't know if simply changing a name can achieve that.

A rose by any other name would still smell sweet.

[brianw]

Proves my point. Meanings change over time just as "Kemosabe" may have one time not been offensive.

And as it has been repeatedly asked: How do you know unless someone tells you?

Where have you been in the past twenty years? You'll find out quickly enough if someone doesn't want to talk about a certain subject.

Which was her point entirely. How do you know unless someone tells you that you are offending them? You say:

You'll find out quickly enough if someone doesn't want to talk about a certain subject.

If they don't say anything then how do you find out? How do you know? Are people supposed to be psychic?

I seen on another thread someone used the word comrade. Could that be offensive? What about mon ami? What about buckaroo? What about ace? What about hotshot? Anyone could find any of these (or any term for that matter) offensive depending on their past experiences but unless they say something how do you know?

I have very little hair. If someone calls me Kojack can I take them to court without first telling them I don't like it?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear maplesyrup,

Yea and get fired in the process. Get real - it was a racist decision by the NS court. Thank goodness there is going to be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Getting fired would probably have been the best way this woman could have legitimized her claim, though I doubt that it would have happened. Plus, she would have gotten a whopping settlement.

I am in favour of the 'three strikes' rules, official or unofficial. If this woman had objected three times,(maybe she did, maybe she didn't) I would say she would have a legitimate case.

The first time, she could have said "Please don't call me that". The owner could have plead ignorance, and fair enough. The second time, the owner could have said "Sorry, I forgot" but the third time, that is just being an ass.

To suggest 'this wouldn't happen in a union' is outright ridiculous. Unions need to be abolished ASAP. Their usefulness has bee out-lived. Gone are the days of company thugs beating employees with baseball bats for refusing to work overtime. Unions, especially gov't ones, are just 'job-security for the lazy', promotions are given for 'time served' and not ability, and are unrealistic in the business world.

[caesar]

To suggest 'this wouldn't happen in a union' is outright ridiculous. Unions need to be abolished ASAP. Their usefulness has bee out-lived. Gone are the days of company thugs beating employees with baseball bats for refusing to work overtime. Unions, especially gov't ones, are just 'job-security for the lazy', promotions are given for 'time served' and not ability, and are unrealistic in the business world.

I think a union might help as a middle man and proof that she had objected to the term. Unions should be back in the hand of the working man and not run by professional union leader that have no real consequences for any actions they may take (they never lose a days pay). I don't think unions need to be dismantled; there are many employers out there who like to misuse employees and skirt labour laws. Several people with head offices in Alberta were told that they would not be paid for Christmas and New Years. This is against our labour laws

Complain and perhaps they will soon find themselves unemployed. Some employees need a larger voice to back up misuse of power by employers. We no longer can depend on EI to tide us over if we threaten to quit if we do not get a raise to keep up with inflation. We do have many immigrant employers now who do not pay statutory holidays or holiday pay. Many employees simply work under the table and pay no income tax. This is a rip off of the employees and other taxpayers.

There may be no physical abuse but there is a growing financial abuse particularly immigrant employers who hire immigrants.

[August1991]

I am in favour of the 'three strikes' rules, official or unofficial. If this woman had objected three times,(maybe she did, maybe she didn't) I would say she would have a legitimate case.

Thelonious, I hope you realize that these kinds of disputes raise unemployment and impoverish us all. Imagine what kind of signal this sends out to all potential employers.

Be wary who you hire. You too might find yourself facing an upset employee and a horrendous legal bill.

We don't know the details of this case. It will be costly for a third party (the court) to find the truth.

There is something very strange when one party to a contract (an employee) can breach at any time without providing any explanation but the other party (employer) is forced into a strait-jacket making breach extremely costly.

Imagine what would happen if, when you bought a car, you had the right at any time to take the car back to the seller and receive a full refund.