Jump to content

Modern-day singhs being weak.


Recommended Posts

Guest GuestSingh
6 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

 

 

Not at all. Gengis Khan (for example) is considered to be a great warrior - he was exceptionally cruel. A lot of Vikings too. There are plenty of other examples. I don't know where you are getting your definition from? Maybe you've mixed up the idea of sant-sipahi with the definition of a warrior? 

maybe. but actually this all really depends on how we personally define something i.e. 'warrior' according to our own personal understanding, interpretation, definition n beliefs n whether its from a sikhi perspective or the western world etc. so who can say ur own definition of it is more worthy than mine?

as sikhs arent we supposed to perceive a warrior to be lyk the singh soorme u mentioned in the battlefield fightin evil n deliverin justice wen it was needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The marriage rates between blacks and whites in the US was roughly similar until about 1965.

Something clearly happened in the 60's. For all the civil rights, there seems to be a destruction of the black family.

The families are headed by the women rather than the men.

I think the blacks were used as guinea pigs for some social experiment which now is being spread into other races. 

I think you're missing my point. Certain blacks had centuries of constant disruption to stable family norms through slavery. The laws and socially acceptable violence meant that a black man trying to protect his wife/daughter from rape and abuse was usually strung up/mutilated or physically punished. 

The whole plantation was a hotbed of grooming too, with white men being able to bring anyone they found attractive into the house (house-slave) specifically for grooming purposes - if they so desired. 

So if your wife/daughter was selected, brought in the house and groomed, and then sprung out an obviously mixed-race child - you couldn't do anything about it. For centuries!

How the hell would any culture develop a stable family culture with marriage and fidelity in all of that? 

You seriously can't see that? 

 

Saying all that, you can go to places like Atlanta and see black people thriving on a middle class level, unlike the usual stereotype. So it's not all a simple story. 

And how much of the way certain urban black neighbourhoods have developed is down to discreetly disadvantageous  policies placed upon them? 

I mean look at the drugged up state of Panjab these days if you think that such things don't happen. Because it's happening to us as we speak.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think you're missing my point. Certain blacks had centuries of constant disruption to stable family norms through slavery. The laws and socially acceptable violence meant that a black man trying to protect his wife/daughter from rape and abuse was usually strung up/mutilated or physically punished. 

The whole plantation was a hotbed of grooming too, with white men being able to bring anyone they found attractive into the house (house-slave) specifically for grooming purposes - if they so desired. 

So if your wife/daughter was selected, brought in the house and groomed, and then sprung out an obviously mixed-race child - you couldn't do anything about it. For centuries!

How the hell would any culture develop a stable family culture with marriage and fidelity in all of that? 

You seriously can't see that? 

Certain blacks yes.

But somehow there were stable black families in spite of slavery.

Pre 1960s, blacks were even more deprived and downtrodden yet they had a semblance of stability that does not exist in a lot of their community today.

You should google Thomas Sowell if you are interested in another perspective. 

In terms of slavery, what was shocking that there were black slave masters and there were even black soldiers fighting for the confederates. 

The history is a lot murkier than you realise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GuestSingh said:

 

as sikhs arent we supposed to perceive a warrior to be lyk the singh soorme u mentioned in the battlefield fightin evil n deliverin justice wen it was needed?

I personally don't think so. I think the morals and ethics and humanity of Sikhi were obviously passed down to the Khalsa, but originally the impetus was to remove all the evil corrupt rulers (like certain moghuls and hill rajahs) that were directly attacking Sikhs and Sikh leadership in our Gurus. They wanted to carve out a safe space for the community. 

I don't think it implied that Singhs go out in the wider world and start trying to right every wrong myself? But if this is the case, we'd better start focusing on looking after each other first, because if we can't do that - how you expect us to help anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Certain blacks yes.

But somehow there were stable black families in spite of slavery.

Pre 1960s, blacks were even more deprived and downtrodden yet they had a semblance of stability that does not exist in a lot of their community today.

You should google Thomas Sowell if you are interested in another perspective. 

In terms of slavery, what was shocking that there were black slave masters and there were even black soldiers fighting for the confederates. 

The history is a lot murkier than you realise.

History is ALWAYS murkier than made out. I'm not saying that there weren't blacks who prospered, or exceptions to the rule, or even sell outs who were given perks for their gaddari but to fail to factor in what I mentioned about the way the ruling society systematically and over a sustained period undermined black masculinity and the family unit seems crazy to me.

These types of things have long enduring effects. They actually shape culture. So that might  help explain some of the negative things people mentioned above - outside of blacks being inherently criminal and violent? 

Plus I added a little bit to my last post that you might have missed in edit. I think it was an important point. Probably in line with what you are saying. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The marriage rates between blacks and whites in the US was roughly similar until about 1965.

Something clearly happened in the 60's. For all the civil rights, there seems to be a destruction of the black family.

The families are headed by the women rather than the men.

I think the blacks were used as guinea pigs for some social experiment which now is being spread into other races. 

Plus, why are the same social and cultural phenomena occuring in black populations where slavery wasn't an institution?

The tiny minority of astute blacks who see through the bull are incredibly unpopular and marginalised by their own people to the point where they are voiceless. The remaining majority revel in their so-called freedom but can't seem to understand they've swapped one plantation for another. Malcolm X died trying to open his people's eyes to these truths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

Plus, why are the same social and cultural phenomena occuring in black populations where slavery wasn't an institution?

The tiny minority of astute blacks who see through the bull are incredibly unpopular and marginalised by their own people to the point where they are voiceless. The remaining majority revel in their so-called freedom but can't seem to understand they've swapped one plantation for another. Malcolm X died trying to open his people's eyes to these truths.

That question I cannot answer. 

I guess there are numerous factors and the various black populations have their own dynamics. 

What makes the Nigerian/ Ghanaian and other West Africans different from the black populations in the Americas. 

Even in the US, they are quite prosperous. They value education and quite business savvy. 

African is very tribal and I guess that different tribes are susceptible to different things. 

Certain tribes in Africa only 100 years ago were hunter gatherers. For them to adopt things such as democracy, judicial law, law and order etc is going to be surmountable challenge. For these types of tribes they will probably disintegrate and unravel quite quickly. 

In West Africa, you have tribes like Yoruba and Ibo that for centuries had their own nations and empires, they had more of a sophisticated culture in place. They had trade links etc.

That would be my guesstimate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world needs spiritual leaders...role models...when people come here as what might be a last ditch attempt for Sangat, and read this stuff...it's demoralizing and makes Sikhs, and by way of association Sikhia, look like yet another backwards ignorant racist religion ..cause that's how some of you...present yourselves ...while the rest say nothing.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji said these people you are speaking of are higher than kings. Act accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

If by 'white' you're referring to music and film moguls from a particular background and community, then yes I agree. ??

The irony of it is that only a very small percentage of perceptive black people can see the deception being carried out in their name. Believe it or not, most "normal" blacks despise the thug / gangsta culture. We've fallen for this brainwashing if the discussions here are any indication. Most of them aren't coarse / sassy / aggressive / confrontational. You have to ask yourself why this particular image of the black race is pushed the most in the media we consume in the West. There's also the other side of it where there's attempts to emasculate the black male in entertainment. There's a running joke among black actors / entertainers that in order for a black actor to take that next step to stardom, he has to "wear a dress" or basically accept a role where he's either gay or effeminate, or literally wear a dress. Black people hate that nonsense as they feel both extremes reflect badly on them, but for these entertainers they either have to play the criminal or be gay in order to get anywhere in their careers.

Blacks on the usa are played like puppets by the american directors and producers of films. 

To get the role they have to perform all kinds of stereo typical roles. 

Blacks in the usa are actually a very big populations. 40 million at the last count.It shows you how many slaves were brought over. by the white slave masters. They in effect created the whole problem in the first place. 

South asians only number about 3 or 4 million. So us desis are a minority down there. Yet blacks form the major ethnic group along with hispanics. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use