Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well in the context of that time... back in 1914 it was a step forward human rights-wise, and a historic event. Explain the Obama situation if what you claim is true.
When you say a step forward, you are assuming that Toronto didn't have a black mayor before 1914 BECAUSE of racial discrimination, and not because the black population at that time were not eligible or ready to be mayors. If prior to 1914, none black people is well educated and politically experienced enough to be the mayor of a large city, then that has nothing to do with so-called "human-right", does it?
Obama being elected as president IMO has nothing to do with human rights either, unless you can approve before Obama there were many great black politicians who were better than those white presidents and were deprived of the rights because of their racial background.
I think often we over stress this "equality" issue to the extent that minority groups were given preferential treatment. For example, a company has the policy that at least 20% of its employees HAVE to be non-white. What's the point? Just give everyone equal opportunity. If a white and a black candidate are equally good, giving the position to the black person due to this policy is not exactly fair to the white guy, is it? Being non-white doesn't mean you deserve more chances. Let the merits decide the result 100% and let race play NO part in it at all, in favor to none. (I am not white, BTW). If there are 100 candidates apply for 10 positions, and the top 10 candidates happen to be all white, then hire these 10 white guys instead of wondering "am I supposed to hire 1 or 2 non-white in order to look good?". And if the top 10 are all non-white, choose them as well. That's what I call real human rights being protected.
When you say a step forward, you are assuming that Toronto didn't have a black mayor before 1914 BECAUSE of racial discrimination, and not because the black population at that time were not eligible or ready to be mayors. If prior to 1914, none black people is well educated and politically experienced enough to be the mayor of a large city, then that has nothing to do with so-called "human-right", does it?
Obama being elected as president IMO has nothing to do with human rights either, unless you can approve before Obama there were many great black politicians who were better than those white presidents and were deprived of the rights because of their racial background.
I think often we over stress this "equality" issue to the extent that minority groups were given preferential treatment. For example, a company has the policy that at least 20% of its employees HAVE to be non-white. What's the point? Just give everyone equal opportunity. If a white and a black candidate are equally good, giving the position to the black person due to this policy is not exactly fair to the white guy, is it? Being non-white doesn't mean you deserve more chances. Let the merits decide the result 100% and let race play NO part in it at all, in favor to none. (I am not white, BTW). If there are 100 candidates apply for 10 positions, and the top 10 candidates happen to be all white, then hire these 10 white guys instead of wondering "am I supposed to hire 1 or 2 non-white in order to look good?". And if the top 10 are all non-white, choose them as well. That's what I call real human rights being protected.
My question was why do you think people made it such a big deal when Obama became president.. not that it was a reflection of the civil rights movement. We're talking about similar situations here, just a different era.
When you say a step forward, you are assuming that Toronto didn't have a black mayor before 1914 BECAUSE of racial discrimination, and not because the black population at that time were not eligible or ready to be mayors. If prior to 1914, none black people is well educated and politically experienced enough to be the mayor of a large city, then that has nothing to do with so-called "human-right", does it?
Obama being elected as president IMO has nothing to do with human rights either, unless you can approve before Obama there were many great black politicians who were better than those white presidents and were deprived of the rights because of their racial background.
I think often we over stress this "equality" issue to the extent that minority groups were given preferential treatment. For example, a company has the policy that at least 20% of its employees HAVE to be non-white. What's the point? Just give everyone equal opportunity. If a white and a black candidate are equally good, giving the position to the black person due to this policy is not exactly fair to the white guy, is it? Being non-white doesn't mean you deserve more chances. Let the merits decide the result 100% and let race play NO part in it at all, in favor to none. (I am not white, BTW). If there are 100 candidates apply for 10 positions, and the top 10 candidates happen to be all white, then hire these 10 white guys instead of wondering "am I supposed to hire 1 or 2 non-white in order to look good?". And if the top 10 are all non-white, choose them as well. That's what I call real human rights being protected.
If Martin Luther King can't be president and Obama can then I can say yes the answer was racism. Was Colin Powell better than Bush, yes.
I disagree I think we should have racial quotas. When I go into the chinese store there are no whites working there.
Merit is not what decides being hired. You see because when you get 1000 people applying for 1 job all with the same or similar degrees the person who gets hired will be the white one. You can say what you want but that code word like corporate culture is just a fancy way to get around discrimination. Corporate culture means I get along with you and if you are WASP I will indefinetly get along with you better than I will with a jew or an italian or indian or other non white.
Merit is not what decides being hired. You see because when you get 1000 people applying for 1 job all with the same or similar degrees the person who gets hired will be the white one. You can say what you want but that code word like corporate culture is just a fancy way to get around discrimination. Corporate culture means I get along with you and if you are WASP I will indefinetly get along with you better than I will with a jew or an italian or indian or other non white.
Very strong allegation. You have any evidence to back this up? You make such discrimination sound like the rule and not the exception.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
