Jump to content
KhalistanYouth

Modern-day singhs being weak.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

 

 

I think the seeds for this emerged much earlier - during slavery itself. You have to read accounts written by former slaves (like Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave - a eye-opening read I'd recommend to everyone). 

In such accounts they tell of how the slavery system often separated children from their parents as a matter of policy. They'd sell them or exchange them with other plantation owners and often keep any information about parentage secret from the children. I presume this was to keep people confused and rootless to make controlling them better? I've mentioned before, it's like whites were developing and implementing some crude, unspoken of social theories in this period.  

Given that, is it any surprise that the idea of a family unit was negatively impact upon within that society? 

 

Here's a little taste of what life was like:

Birth/Childhood (p. 1 to p. 5)[edit]

The narrative begins with a description of Henson's life growing up. He was born June 15, 1789 in Charles County, Maryland, on a farm belonging to Mr. Francis N. He was the youngest of six children. His mother was the property of Dr. Josiah McP., but was hired routinely to Mr. N, who owned his father. His earliest known memory was of his father bloody and beaten. Henson eventually found out that his father had been beaten because he had beaten a white man for assaulting Henson's mother, which was punishable by Maryland law. His father's right ear was cut off and he had received a hundred lashes as punishment. His father, from that point afterward became a "different man" and the Mr. N. eventually sold him. Dr. McP stopped hiring out his mother afterward, but Josiah went to live with her for two or three years.

He expresses that his time on Dr. McP's plantation was some of his happiest. During this time he learned about God from his mother, who frequently recited the Lord's prayer.

Not long after, Dr. McP died after falling from a horse and drowning. As a consequence, the doctor's property, which included Henson and his family, was divided throughout the country. On the day this was happening after watching her other five children get sold off, his mother was bought by Mr. R. (Isaac Riley). At seeing that Henson would not be bought also, she went to Mr. R and begged at his feet. He kicked her away and ignored her. Henson was then sold to another master, but after seeing that Henson had falling sick, he was sold to Mr. Riley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_Josiah_Henson,_Formerly_a_Slave,_Now_an_Inhabitant_of_Canada,_as_Narrated_by_Himself

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
On 7/20/2019 at 8:44 PM, GuestSingh said:

kaleh have a thug mentality - not a warrior one.

a few wrk colleagues of mine went out to eat recently. wen retunin to their car, they saw a few kaleh beatin up a taxi driver for refusin to take more than 5 of em. afta they walked off, he threw some sorta rock/stone at em in frustration. one of em then walked bk to him, took out a zombie blade from a backpack n stabbed him in the head. apparently there was jus a clunk sound n then a sudden pool of blood. the kala walked off as if nothing happened.

nw aint a warrior someone who defends himself or othas in danger? well where was the danger to lyf wen all an innocent cabbie did was tell em about the law jus so he can continue earnin a livin for his family? to keep a roof over their heads n put food on the table?

theres nothin brave or heroic about these kaleh. theyre jus dead in mind n heart. n thts a fact.

You see many blacks attack non blacks because they hate the fact that other races get along with each other. While they are seen as subhuman. 

So they try and attack those people out of jealousy and insecurity. 

Many blacks have an inferiority complex. They see themselves as less then non blacks. 

Its leads them to become ostracized from communities. Hence why blacks are aeen as dangerous. They have no value for their lifes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes 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. 

The main reason why black and white marriages in the usa are accepted is one thing. RELIGION.

Blacks by and large are christians in the usa. So whites see them as on of them. They have a similar white culture. 

When they have marriage its in a church so they are both singing from the same hymn sheet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

Yet somehow the white man has elevated these people to musical stars. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

 

.Blacks are seen as ugly, nappy haired, abnormal ape like features. such as big flat noses, big lips, big ears. grotesque. Yet somehow the white man has elevated these people to musical stars. 

I think that caricature died out a long time ago - other than in the minds of people of a particular ilk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Edited by GuestSingh

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sidh Gohst is a Sikh Prayer... (i hope u weren't being sarcastic)? Prayer came about when Guru Nanak Ji had an assembly (gohst) with Sidhs, hence the name Sidh Gohst. The prayer is like a Q&A session where Sidhs ask n Guru Ji answers... NOW! Who been telling me to stick t learning about Sidh Gohst?? 😔
    • Get a normal bike n ride it. Road bike u can go far n fast so it's advantageous. Second bike type, ideal for short distant travelling n cycle at own leisure... Totally forgot wha the types called though I own one. Not mountain bike something else.
    • Is that Harpreet's mugshot? Lol! We need to understand y they committed a crime. Obviously for money but what lead them? For their age appears they had a hard life or "hard" life (depends how u look at it) and thas it! They understood the phenomenon of dog eat dog world. So they took a drastic step and failed... Of course they could've succeeded.
    • and also, as your next post alludes to, naamdharis also take khanday dee pahul, and actually most of them do compared to "us" mainstream sikhs. naamdharis are also much closer to rehit than some of these jathabandis we have now corrupt the panth since colonial times. However naamdharis are missing the kshatriya rehit of khalsa, ie the warrior maryada. I think a lot of "sikh" children would easily get influenced by christian schools due to lack of sikhi knowledge, and this includes those who go to these schools in India as well Yes, Khalsa sikhs used to learn from other sikh sampradaiye as well when it came to spiritual gyaan and sikhi knowledge. Obviously for learning there are no strict rules, however other rules are different for khalsa sikhs as they need to follow the military rules as well compared to sehajdhari "civilian" sikhs. And this is funny, but would learning from a harmonium teacher harm your sikhi, as it takes you away from learning sikh/Gurus' instruments? I would find it harmful for someone to teach that crazy keertan which plays at many rehnsbhais, 🤣😂
    • I have been reading some the posts over the last week and all I have seen is the constant squabbling and negative judgemental attitude towards each other.   Whether we like like it or not we are a community made up of people from all walks of lives.  Our temperaments are different, some hot and some cold.  Some of us want to do things for now and some for longer term goals.  Some want to take a militant approach and some diplomatic.  This is not unique to us this has been the case for all communities trying achieve goals in a struggle.  Malcom X’s ideology was different from Martin Luther Kings but ultimately the goal was the same.  Bhagat Singhs ideology was different from the All India Congress but the goal was ultimately the same.  Nelson Mandela was hot blooded when he was young but later switched to more diplomatic solutions for South Africa.  The same can be observed from figures throughout all of history and never has everyone collectively agreed upon one single method of achieving community goals.   Just pick the organisations, groups and temperaments that you feel you can gel with and quit the bashing of each other.  I’m sure by doing we would be more united, be more powerful and achieve so much more than ultimately searching for the one miracle pill to solve our issues. 
×

Important Information

Terms of Use