californiasardar1

Fair enough. But I want to point out that Ranjit Singh's empire was not a "Sikh Raj". A "Sikh Raj" would not be an empire with a monarch.

Sham Singh Attariwala's most visible direct descendant is a "secular," liquor-drinking Indian government lapdog who takes every opportunity he can to remind people of his military title (which he no doubt garnered by a being a lapdog) and the fact that he is Sham Singh Attariwala's descendant. His son is clean-shaven and is married to a Bollywood actress/politician (who also comes from a pathetic "Sikh" military family) who takes every opportunity she can to go on twitter and call Sant Ji a terrorist.

Exactly. It illustrates just how insecure we are as a community. We do not have to behave so insecurely. We have great examples in our Gurus and the numerous Gursikhs of the past and present. It's these examples that Sikhs need to hold up, not the examples of random Punjabis who spent their lives just trying to enrich themselves. Elevating a sinful warlord and all of his kin is just one example of our insecurity. As another example, look how proud many Sikhs are of Sikh soldiers who served the British Empire and the current tyrannical Indian regime. How strange is it for a community to be simultaneously proud of soldiers serving to protect the British empire and of freedom fighters trying to overthrow the empire? And speaking of "freedom fighters," isn't it also strange for a religious community to take so much pride in people who have openly and clearly renounced the Sikh faith? If someone wants to admire certain aspects of atheists of Sikh descent who fought against the British Empire, fine, but I don't see why they should be admired by us any more than Hindus or various other non-Sikhs who fought against colonialism. Moreover, there were plenty of devout Sikhs who opposed British rule who could be held up as examples instead. It's the massive insecurity of the Sikh community that has created an environment where we don't feel like we can do basic things like insist that a Sikh religious wedding ceremony should be between two Sikhs. No other major faith allows interfaith religious wedding ceremonies.

How about all of your "negative and hate-filled" posts directed towards me? At least I am talking about actual issues rather than engaging in personal attacks against people who I don't know.

Sorry, but can someone explain to me why we should care about this woman, or her drunk, womanizing husband, or her short, dimwitted, useless son?

These forums are completely dead as it is. It seems like the mods want to keep it that way, because they lock every thread that gets even a mild discussion going. What a joke.

<banned word filter activated> 99% of my posts on these forums consist of me taking shots at monay. My kesh are fully grown.

Yes Jatts are pathetic

Let me and my clean shaven acquaintance argue about worldly things.

How are "cultural Marxists" using the "template for Marxism"?

Attractiveness is far from an objective thing. One person's 5 is another person's 8. I don't think these guys necessarily saw her as "attainable" because of her appearance. In fact, they probably viewed her as far more attractive (because they presumably struggled with girls) than the average guy would. Guys who have a tough time getting any attention from women have a tendency to overrate anyone who will even talk to them. A guy doesn't go commit murder to impress a woman who thinks is an "attainable girl next door." One would only do that for a girl that they have put up on a pedestal. The Shoker guy probably saw her as a goddess.

A pathetic community indeed. I hate to say it, but it's difficult to conclude anything else.

Can you please explain to me what "cultural Marxism" is? And can you please also explain what on earth is has to do with "Marxism"? (Let's pretend for the moment that the term "Marxism" wasn't just thrown in there just to come up with a term that sounds sufficiently scary to people.)

By "Europe" I presume you mean "the UK." From what I can tell, Sikhs in continental Europe have it even worse than Sikhs in the US. Sikhs in the US suffer from being a tiny, sparsely distributed minority in a massive country with 330 million people. Having said that, I think it has actually made American Sikhs more in touch with what a difficult position Sikhs are in. Sikhs in the UK and Canada often mistakenly think that we have a lot more power and influence in the world than we actually do. For example, consider how Sikhs are only slightly outnumbered by Hindus in the UK. That has left some British Sikhs a bit clueless about our struggles in India because they can't conceive of the fact that Sikhs are outnumbered by Hindus in India by a ratio of 46 to 1.

KaurRepublic is a complete <banned word filter activated>. Her arguments make no sense. How is encouraging people to have more children the same thing as "forcing" people? Did that guy say anything suggesting that women should be forced to have more children? How is anyone "demanding" anything? That guy was highlighting a problem in our community and urging people who agree with him to maybe (if they want to) consider doing something about it. Anyway, while I agree with critiques that you (and others) make about the feminist/identity politics crowd, you don't do yourself any favors by adopting far-right terminology (like "cultural marxism"). The far-right are no friends to Sikhs.

What makes you say this?

I have noticed that many (maybe even a majority) of Canadian Sikhs try to speak the way American Blacks are stereotyped to speak. This is also true for many "famous" Canadian Sikhs (think of "superwoman" and other various youtube "stars") . Why do they do this? American Sikhs know how ridiculous and absurd it would look for them to go around talking in such a way. I don't understand why Canadians do this. Maybe because Canada doesn't have any real "hoods," they think attempting to sound like you are from the "hood" is cool, and they know nobody will call them out on it? Maybe Canadians are in general so used to not having their own identity and living vicariously through others that they think it's natural to shamelessly imitate other people? Maybe most Canadians are just corny?

Yes.

Gagandip Singh wasn't in a relationship. There was no "breakup." He was a desperate, thirsty guy hopelessly infatuated with a girl who had friendzoned him. Yes, she was indeed average looking. The fact that THREE singhs (not one, not two, but THREE) ruined their lives over her shows how desperate singhs are in general.

Nothing. No presence, no community. People driving for an hour to go to a tiny gurdwara that resembles an abandoned garage. Vast university libraries with no evidence that "Sikhs" existed. Arranged marriages were the norm because how on earth would two Sikhs ever meet each other "in real life"? The first day of school every year, I had to show all of my teachers a note written by my mother basically saying: "my son is a follower of an Indian religion called "Sikhism," and it is required for him to wear a piece of cloth covering his hair, so please don't give him any trouble, we promise he is not a gang member wearing a doo-rag." The responses from the teachers ranged from confused at best, to forcing me to plead my case to higher school authorities at worst. Most Sikh families who were in California arrived in the post-1984 era. Non-religious monay who could not have cared less about the Sikh struggle took advantage of the persecution going on in India to claim amnesty. The local gurdwara committee was 99% mona.

I understand the point you are trying to make. I am taking exception to the example that you used for a desirable woman.

Why do you go to a tall leggy blonde as an example? No punjabi girl fits that description, so is every punjabi girl seen as "average" and "attainable"?

I don't understand what you are trying to say

True ?

You say the average mona does not want "reform" in Sikhi. That is true only because monay have effectively already "reformed" Sikhi. They already basically get to do whatever they want. To illustrate what I mean, the average "interfaith couple" didn't care about reforming Sikhi either until gurdware started banning interfaith anand karajs. Now such people are crying and are trying to reform Sikhi (or, from their point of view, restore Sikhi to what they perceive it to be --- an "anything goes" because "we accept everyone" faith). If monay were restricted from doing certain things (like dressing up as singhs during anand karajs only to toss their paghs off the second they finish, or prohibited from throwing parties after anand karajs, or banned from anand karajs all together), they would start crying and go into the "reform Sikhi" camp.