Jump to content
genie

Laurence Fox claimed Sikh soldier in Sam Mendes war epic 1917 is ‘forcing diversity’

Recommended Posts

I agreed with this fox guy when he appeared on question time cos not everything these crazy far left feminists or muslim activists say is classed as "white male privilege".

but now he has shown his true White male privilege and far right white racist views when he complained about a sikh soldier being featured in the new movie 1917 as "forced diversity" in the movie industry. Had he had a brain or some intelligence he would have realised 83,000+ turbanned sikh soldiers died fighting shoulder to shoulder with allied forces in both world wars defending the UK in foreign lands they had no personal conflict with. It shows these white racists are  trying to go mainstream these days aided by stupid views of far left crazypot idiots causing people to become more tolerant to the alternative opposite views.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was interesting how he had a go at Sam Mendes film 1917 but forgot the much older film 'the English Patient' with the SIngh in it too , obviously they do not teach about the 1.5 million Indian men who came into the first World War arena on promise of independence, in such schools as Harrow and Eton . Even Churchill admitted that the UK had let down the Indians despite their sacrifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen this film yet and never heard of it until this racist fox guy controversy. But do to his remarks in the public it has received more publicity. So I will go watch the film for myself soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think about it:

This Fox fudhu saw a single brown turbaned man in film about WW1, and it was enough to cause him mental torment at having to think about being white - a trauma so intense, that he felt compelled to go on TV and air his imagined 'injustice' at having been subjected to such an horrendous experience at the altar of 'multiculturalism' and 'forced diversity'.  

What a spoilt, closeted fudhu. If something like this is enough to cause you so much distress - you REALLY must have a lovely life.

c**t.

And to think that these are the kinds of privileged, ignorant whiteys that are put into positions of power...........  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

Just think about it:

This Fox fudhu saw a single brown turbaned man in film about WW1, and it was enough to cause him mental torment at having to think about being white - a trauma so intense, that he felt compelled to go on TV and air his imagined 'injustice' at having been subjected to such an horrendous experience at the altar of 'multiculturalism' and 'forced diversity'.  

What a spoilt, closeted fudhu. If something like this is enough to cause you so much distress - you REALLY must have a lovely life.

c**t.

And to think that these are the kinds of privileged, ignorant whiteys that are put into positions of power...........  

obviously never saw 'The English Patient' , always disliked his father James Fox played toffeenosed english toffs in films , Larry was married to Billie Piper  ex-TARDIS girl and had messy expensive custody battle but had to whine on in the newspapers too. Guess he's just one of those twerps who cannot do good anywhere but whines about his victimisationin all spheres of life . Tiresome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we really be proud of these soldiers who were fighting for the occupiers in lands they had no business in l persoanly am ashamed of them for being lap dogs to the Brits 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's got called out on this in a major way in the past few days even by the kind of people he was trying to appeal to. He's issued a kind-of apology to Sikhs for his ignorance pertaining to this part of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Indians fought in these wars simply for the money, I really dont think they cared about the cause   let's be realistic here!  Same with all the people from other colonised countries that fought in the war. 

More muslims fought in these wars than Sikhs even though its strictly against their religion to fight for non muslims or for a non muslim cause.   They simply did it for the money. 

If anything it opened doors for people to move to the uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 12:11 PM, puzzled said:

I think Indians fought in these wars simply for the money, I really dont think they cared about the cause   let's be realistic here!  Same with all the people from other colonised countries that fought in the war. 

More muslims fought in these wars than Sikhs even though its strictly against their religion to fight for non muslims or for a non muslim cause.   They simply did it for the money. 

If anything it opened doors for people to move to the uk

That's not true. Plenty of people who didn't fight had the doors opened to them too. It was the rebuilding of the country in the postwar era that necessitated the need for reliable labour. Most of the ruling classes here seem to believe their own are a nuisance and not up to par in this sense.  That's why they prefer eastern European labour too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 8:44 AM, Harditsingh said:

Should we really be proud of these soldiers who were fighting for the occupiers in lands they had no business in l persoanly am ashamed of them for being lap dogs to the Brits 

I'm infinitely more proud of the Sikhs who stood for their own freedom rather than some foreign cause. People like Kartar Singh Sarabha and the Ghaddari Babay and countless others who get swept under the rug in the face of pro-colonial propaganda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

That's not true. Plenty of people who didn't fight had the doors opened to them too. It was the rebuilding of the country in the postwar era that necessitated the need for reliable labour. Most of the ruling classes here seem to believe their own are a nuisance and not up to par in this sense.  That's why they prefer eastern European labour too. 

many who fought in the war were allowed to move to foreign countries, In my mums pind there is a whole lane of "foji" houses  the whole row of houses moved abroad and never returned back since     because they never returned back other people have claimed their land and houses and moved in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i watched a documentary and they said a lot of the sikh soldiers that returned they still had their rifles and other guns and some of them used them to kill during the riots during 47 ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, puzzled said:

many who fought in the war were allowed to move to foreign countries, In my mums pind there is a whole lane of "foji" houses  the whole row of houses moved abroad and never returned back since     because they never returned back other people have claimed their land and houses and moved in. 

They often had to fight again in those foreign lands. So don't think that they were welcomed with open arms because of their participation in the foreign wars. Look at the Komagatu Maru incident for example. I saw the 'friendly' welcome in east London first hand as a child so, I know what I'm talking about. Plus it wasn't just limited to my ends, plenty of people all over the country have accounts of virulent racism and violence directed towards them. 

Then you talk about ww1, and in the words of Bhai Jagraj Singh, look how they rewarded us for it with Jallianwala Bagh. And then partition straight after ww2. 

The Sikh story is greater than participating in foreign wars. I don't doubt those guys were brave, but they will never be shaheeds or remotely comparable to those that fought for the freedom of their own people, against the most powerful and devious empire of the time. If you read Omissi's work on Indian soldiers in ww1, he believes that goray specifically targeted the poorest and most illiterate farmers in Panjab, and press ganging was definitely going on. So they weren't exactly 'allowed' to move to foreign countries, they got there and fought for rights to remain against often hostile white populations. 

 

37 minutes ago, puzzled said:

watched a documentary and they said a lot of the sikh soldiers that returned they still had their rifles and other guns and some of them used them to kill during the riots during 47 ! 

My family defended their illaka and some also saved some sullay (and otherwise), and they didn't have guns. They had shasters though, but great grandpa was a blacksmith, so he probably had good shasters, plus by accounts I've heard he was as strong as an ox from working in the forge. Yeah, a lot of people didn't hand in their bandooks, I think some of them were even used in 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
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...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • hmm OK from english observations and actually identifiable sikh bibian they wear jooda at dasam dwaar as taught by Guru ji (hukamnama says not wear plaits or open hair, to keep hair covered). Whereas the dancing girls and the ones in the cart wearing their hair similarly like traditional hindu women (compare against southern indian hair fashions with guth and flower adornments)
    • Sikh women 1860s    by artist Bishan Singh      Maharaja Sher Singh court     artist Bishan Singh   sikh woman amritsar    most likely british drawing
    • try doing wider research the so-called benefits of the carnivore /paleo diets are temporary states and it is not sustainable for the planet's current population you would need 16 planet earths to support that number of animals . Free roaming ? in India that would be what ,  cattle only , because usually goats and sheep belong to nomadic people even in cities situations . Heme iron is poisonous as it elevates the iron levels too much and increases risks of heart attack and strokes . From plants the body takes what it needs only
    • What about the ppl doing paleo and carnivore diet? Theyve had massive benefits.  And they support grass grazed cs corn fed, free roaming and sometimes wild meat.  Ofc wild meat is impossible for so many ppl. But what about free roaming? There is land in many places that is not suitable for farming but is good for grazing.  Even that might not be enough. But it must be said, that meat is better for ur body. It has the form of nutrients that are easily digestible by our body such as heme iron vs non heme iron.  But i dont know the effect of meat on our mind. Its probably too tamma gunn.   
    • I dont know either. But perhaps because a takhat was only built during formation of akaal takhat sahib? Before that we had a thardaa sahib. So maybe up to the 5 gurus. Gurujinonly sat kn a pirdi. Not a takhat??
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use