californiasardar1

great post

Why are you singling out this guy? The vast majority of Sikhs have already made a complete mockery out of Sikhi and interpret it as they see fit.

yeah, basically

Look at what happens during typical "Sikh" wedding festivities. These "Sikhs" are the majority (greater than 90%) whether they identify as "reform Sikhs" (or have even heard of the term) or not.

Wrong. Shoker was not the "bad boy" that she liked. Read this article (and others). She friendzoned him, but he was still deeply infatuated with her, even stating that he was ready to go to prison for 20+ years for her. Shoker was another desperate, thirsty singh. His thirstiness and desperation made him completely lose touch with reality to the point where he committed a heinous crime and is now spending the prime of his life behind bars all to impress some girl who just used him as a low-rent thug.

The fact that this guy threw away his political career in order to marry her is example number 72,602,308 of how desperate singhs have become. (If you want to call this "trim singh" a "singh".) How thirsty and pathetic can one be? I have noticed a trend of somewhat successful singhs gladly settling down with women who few other people want (because of a tarnished reputation, or because they are way past their "sell-by" date, etc.). Usually, when these women were younger and in demand, they would have never considered a singh. But after it becomes obvious that they are struggling to settle down (because of their various issues) and are getting old, they are happy to settle for a simp with a pagh as long as he has some status/money. This Bola guy probably thought to himself: "I wear a turban (and can't do a decent job tying it), and I am overweight and kind of ugly. But somehow a girl is talking to me! Isn't this amazing?! I should marry her!! Who cares if it kills my career? It will totally be worth it!!!"

1. She looks much worse these days with her hair cut shorter 2. This whole story is really depressing. THREE thirsty Singhs basically had their lives ended or ruined. THREE thirsty Singhs. The real story is how desperate many Singhs are. I can't decide which of the three Singhs in the story is the most pathetic. 3. I'm not sure what to believe, but it seems like a real tragedy in any case 4. There is no excusing the behavior of Gagandip Singh and Harinder Shoker. But is it wrong to point out that they probably wouldn't have sunk to such depths if they weren't so thirsty and desperate for women? It reminds me of those stories of incel white kids going crazy and killing people.

Probably people who live in areas with relatively large numbers of Sikhs (near a major gurdwara, for instance). But in general, I'd say educated whites are the most likely to have an awareness of Sikhs.

No (unless they live near the White Sikh headquarters in New Mexico). While Sikhs are a tiny minority compared to Punjabi Sikhs. Most of the white Sikhs are people who were hippies in the 60s and 70s when eastern spirituality was a big thing and they somehow came into contact with "yogi" Harbhajan Singh or other white Sikhs. As far as I am aware, white Sikhs are not really passing Sikhi on successfully to their children/grandchildren. Once that old generation is gone, white Sikhs will probably have an even more negligible presence.

What are you talking about? I did not mention "people," I mentioned one person.

Divide and conquer, of course. Left-leaning coalitions are easy to defeat because they are made up of many different groups, and it is very easy to make it seem like one group is being favoured over another. Whatever issues Sikhs in the UK might have with another group, I think Corbyn (and even more so McDonnell) would have been great allies for the Sikhs. It's a shame. I get the impression that a majority of Sikhs vote Labour (although there are some who love the Tories ... they are the kind of odd people who feel proud that they can claim that their ancestors were from former British colonies). Do a majority of Hindus support the Tories? I don't understand why the British voters were not more receptive to Corbyn's proposals. They sounded pretty good to me: fund the NHS properly, nationalize the railways, etc. I agree that he was clearly a threat to the status quo. Note how it came out later that high-ranking Labour officials were relieved when Labour narrowly lost the 2017 election! I think something similar would have happened in the US if Bernie Sanders had gotten the Democratic party nomination to run for President. Most Dem politicians and most "progressive" business leaders (e.g. Bill Gates) would have privately (or even publicaly) preferred Trump to Sanders.

You won't get an argument from me defending insurance companies and the American healthcare model. As I said in my post, the wealthy and powerful (e.g. insurance companies) do everything they can to prevent social safety net programs from being established and/or expanding. They own most of the politicians, and they are very adept at scaring voters by spreading misinformation and framing things in misleading ways. For example, some more left-wing democrats proposed abolishing private health insurance and moving to a more efficient, universal healthcare system. The talking point became that these democrats were "trying to take away your health insurance." Technically it is true, they wanted to take it away and replace it with something better. You can see how misleading it is, but one-liners like that go a long way in politics. It's not the size of the America that makes an NHS-style system impossible. If such a thing were proposed at state levels, the same media campaign against it would take place in those states.

Well, if I could afford a house worth a million pounds in the UK on a 30k pound salary, I should move over there! I completely agree with you about the healthcare system and vacation time. I think the reason the US doesn't have a universal healthcare system like the UK is simple. Here is something that I have noticed about social safety net programs: 1. It is EXTREMELY difficult to establish social safety net programs (it takes a lot of political power and will, and there is resistance from the wealthy and powerful, who launch media campaigns to scare people away from such programs and stigmatize them). 2. Once a social safety net program is established, people realize how much they like it, and it is EXTREMELY difficult for politicians to take it away. Even right-wing politicians will largely concede that they need to protect these programs. Because of point 1, social safety net programs typically can only be established during extraordinary times when people are desperate or receptive to big changes for various reasons. The NHS was established in the post-war period, for example. The US made various strides in adding to the social safety net during the 1930s, 1964-66, and 2009-2010. But the politicians in power fell short of establishing an NHS-style system during these very brief windows of opportunity. Outside of these once-in-a-generation opportunities, it is virtually impossible to get anything done. Long story short: the UK left made better use of its once-in-a-generation opportunities than the American left. Other than that, I see similar political problems in both countries. People keep voting for right-wing politicians who will screw them over economically instead of voting for people who are proposing new programs that could help them. Why? Right-wing politicians know how to scare people away from changes that could help them, and they know how to distract people by getting them to focus on culture war issues. Americans keep having to choose between corporatist politicians. One corporatist party (Republicans) caters to racist whites who hate black people and immigrants. Another corporatist party (Democrats) pretends to be progressive, but focuses mostly on identity issues instead of economic issues (because their corporate masters don't mind them focusing on identity politics, but they do mind economic reforms that would make them pay more). In the UK, people generally have to make similar choice, but you had opportunities in 2017 and 2019 to vote for a Labour party that was actually proposing real, sweeping changes that would benefit the average person. Americans have not had that opportunity in my lifetime.

These forums are so dead. Most threads barely get any replies, and there are only a few posts each day. What have the mods accomplished by banning one of the most frequent posters?

Here is something that I agree strongly with. I like that there are neighborhoods in the UK where you can walk around and pass by several different gurdware.

You make good points here. I agree that the UK does have considerable soft power. But I think much of that soft-power is due to: 1. English being the dominant international language 2. The City of London I think that Brexit is going to deal a severe blow to UK soft power. Young Europeans will not be able to move to the UK for study or work as easily. Will the City of London retain the same level of dominance that it has had in financial services? Maybe, but maybe not. The US, for better or for worse, has more soft power than any other country, and it's not even close. Again, I'm not saying this as someone who thinks America is a great country and the be all and end all. I'm just saying it as it is, based upon my travels. People all over the world watch American movies and tv shows. People all over the world are heavily influenced by American pop culture. Stuff that is happening in America somehow seems to spread elsewhere, even when it is inexplicable why. (For instance, why on earth did "black lives matter" become an issue in the UK and Europe? It shouldn't have, because black people in the UK and Europe have not had remotely the same history and experience that they have had in the US. But because BLM was going on in the US, it spread elsewhere.) Here is another thing I have noticed: even though America has lots of problems, it is still able to attract a large proportion of the world's best and brightest. Not just from third world countries, but from the UK and Europe. For example, many of the very best British-born and trained scientists are employed at American universities or at American tech companies. On the other hand, very few top-level American scientists work in Britain. (The massive difference in salary is perhaps the main explanation. But there are other factors too.) To summarize: I am not happy with the way things are going in the US, and I think that it is a country with a lot of very big problems, and some huge divisions, and I would like to find a better place to live. (In fact, even after all that I have said, I would probably try to live in the UK if I was going to get married and raise a family.) But in spite of all that is wrong with the US, I still think it offers unrivaled opportunity. That is especially true for people from immigrant backgrounds. Of course, opportunity alone isn't everything, and I think the stability, security and quality of life that people enjoy in many western European countries may be better. Anyway, perhaps the problems here will reach a boiling point and the rate of American decline will accelerate to the point where I don't think it offers unrivaled opportunity. I guess we will find out.

Not just size of cars and houses. Being in America allows for more material consumption in general. Whether that is a good or bad thing is another issue, but as long as we are talking about "quality of life" in standard material terms, it is a factor. I also think that in America, class is less of a factor, and it is easier for people from modest backgrounds to break into elite circles. Huh? What does this have to do with anything? What is the point of this comment? What avenues do people in the UK have to acquire wealth outside of the property that their family may or may not already have? Can a qualified professional in the UK who is not already a homeowner and makes 30k-40k pounds per year hope to acquire the kind of house that you speak of? (Please correct me if I am wrong and they somehow can.) At least in the US there is still the opportunity to start off with nothing, get a job with good compensation, and buy a decent house and whatever else one may want. That opportunity is available for fewer and fewer people every day (as I said, the US has lots of problems), but at least it is still there. Higher education and healthcare are too expensive in the US. But the situation is not at all like you are portraying it. State universities in the US are good and don't require anything even close to a quarter of a million dollars to attend. People who come from families without lots of resources frequently get lots of aid. Most of the horror stories surrounding student debt have to do with people making horrible decisions, like attending very expensive private schools or paying for useless graduate degrees (like MBAs and law degrees from low-ranked schools). I think the NHS is overall better than what the US offers in terms of healthcare. But people in the US who have decent jobs have decent employer-provided health insurance. And there is also support for people who are poor and old and otherwise don't have access to such employer-provided insurance. I think it should be better, but it is something. The bottom line is that it is not a nightmare scenario where people are paying out of their pockets for everything. Now you are again bringing up an example of someone in the UK who already has a bunch of property. How does one acquire property if they start off with nothing?

Why bother to listen to Sant Ji's speeches when you can just be a mona and get a tattoo of Sant Ji on your arm (to feel good about yourself) and go around drinking and womanizing? And not only that, but have "singhs" on these forums defend your right to do so all the while insulting people like me?

Don't mind them. Many people on these forums think it is amusing to laugh at others' misfortune. Hope you are well.

There is a massive difference between the Sikh experience in the UK vs the US. The UK is a much better place to be a Sikh. The biggest difference-maker is population density. According to the 2011 census, there were (at the time) about 432,000 Sikhs in the UK. Accounting for some population growth and uncounted people (such as illegal immigrants), there are probably at least 500,000 Sikhs in the UK today. Now take into consideration that the UK has a population of about 67 million crammed into a relatively small island. And also consider that most of the Sikhs live in certain parts of the UK that have relatively large Sikh populations (e.g. West London, Birmingham area, etc.). There are not official figures on Sikhs in the US, but based on data about people from and Indian background and Punjab-speaking background, 250,000 is probably a very conservative upper bound on the US Sikh population. And then consider that the US is a massive country and has a population of about 330 million. As a consequence, Sikhs are much less visible and much less powerful (as a community) in the US than they are in the UK. In the UK, I feel like most people have an awareness of who Sikhs are. When I have been in the UK, it is a bit of a relief to not feel like I have to constantly point out that I'm not an Arab or a Muslim. In the US, nobody had a clue what a Sikh was when I was growing up. It is getting a bit better now, but it's still not great. Anyway, aside from how Sikhs are viewed by the general population, I think the population density of Sikhs is most important for the Sikh community itself. It makes for a greater support system for more religiously inclined Sikhs. Further, the critical mass enables people who don't come from religious families to nevertheless gain exposure to Sikhi and get into it as they grow older. That's probably why examples of monay who become Singhs are much more frequent in the UK than in the US.

Why are you getting so defensive? I like the UK and think it's perhaps a better place for Sikhs to live than the US. But having traveled the country extensively, it was sad and surprising. I am not one of those Americans who thinks America is a great, unparalleled country. Most of American culture and the American way of life disgusts me. I have hoped to find a better place to live. But traveling to other countries, I've seen that there are lots of problems elsewhere too. America is worse than the UK in terms of inequality (the US has a greater homeless problem, as you pointed out). But the US is also a richer country than the UK, and the median family is still better off materially. You mentioned LA and San Francisco. Have you been to the US and traveled extensively? Or are you basing your views on what you read online? What you see in a few large cities is not what you see in the average American suburb. One thing that Brits (and Europeans) generally do not understand is how vast and varied the US is. Did you know that the state of California alone is three times the size of England? (I met a British girl on shaadi.com who thought California was a city. I met another who thought I must live near San Francisco since I am from California. She was shocked when I told her that the distance from where I live to San Francisco was greater than the distance from London to Edinburgh.) Did you know that the US has five times as many people as the UK? You can't form your opinion on what life is like in such a vast country based upon some viral images of San Francisco. Are you sure that the majority of the UK is aware that it is no longer a major world power? Many Brexit voters seem to think otherwise. Being a world power matters (rightly or wrongly) in terms of a country's ability to maintain prosperity. Whether that prosperity is divided fairly is another matter (in the US it is not). But the (lower level of) prosperity in the UK is divided almost as unequally as it is in the US. This is in contrast to what is seen in many parts of Western Europe. So I have a more negative view of the UK standard of living than you do. In terms of quality of life, most of continental Western Europe has a lower ceiling and higher floor than the US. The UK has a a lower ceiling than the US and a floor that is perhaps as low as the US floor (or maybe very slightly higher). MAYBE a poor person in the UK is slightly better off than in the US, but I don't think that the average person is. Compare salaries for professional jobs in the UK and US sometime. It may shock you. Of course people continue to arrive on the shores of the UK. There is a massive third world out there that is very far behind the western world. I'm not sure that that's something to take comfort in. It would be like people in Punjab dismissing its declining quality of life by pointing to the number of bhaiyas who keep arriving. Finally, what is the UK "soft power" that you speak of? I am curious.

Sorry, that is just not true, whether you want to admit it or not Monay making fun Singhs is basically a sport

I think that these cultural issues are a big distraction designed to obscure the much more serious economic issues. In most Western countries, the gap between the rich and poor has been steadily growing. Average people have seen their quality of life go down. Yet, instead of holding to account those responsible, or attempting to change the system that has led to the current state of affairs, most average people end up scapegoating others. No offense (I know many posters here are from the UK), but I think that the UK in particular is in the beginning stages of a steady and prolonged decline. Brits are very delusional about their place in the world. They seem to have been too frequently fed the myth that they "stood alone" against the rest of the world in WW2 and won the war. And they don't seem to have gotten the memo that the days of empire ended long ago. Brexit has set the UK on a path to irrelevance. Based on what I have seen, the UK has a combination of most of bad characteristics of the US and continental Europe. And it doesn't have enough of the good aspects of either the US or continental Europe. Once you get out of Central London, it is surprising how run-down, dilapidated and depressing the UK is. It's shocking how much poverty there is. Having said that, I think the UK is still an okay place for the Sikh community (since there are many neighborhoods with large Sikh populations and gurdwaras).

If this is the case, it is only because there are approximately 2 or 3 singhs left And how many instances of "defending our faith" even occur in the west (outside of your fantasies)? Here is on thing you ignored: the "bullying" of sikhs (that you claim monay defend others from) is actually perhaps more likely to be done by "mona sikhs" than by non-sikhs

Your experiences and observations do not at all surprise me. Most of my family are monay, and when I was growing up, almost all of the Sikh families in our local community were monay. I got teased more at the gurdwara than at my local school. Just to pick out one random example (out of many), I remember I missed the gurdwara one weekend as part of a school field trip to watch a football game. The next weekend when I went to the gurdwara, my monay "friends" thought it was amusing to pretend that they had watched the game on TV and that I had been caught on camera, which prompted the television commentator to wonder out loud about the "onion-head" sitting in the stadium.