Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest CanadianSikh94

Sikh is a race, not just a religion

Recommended Posts

Guest CanadianSikh94

There is a difference between believing the Sikh religion and calling yourself a Sikh. I believe that Sikh is an ethnogroup of Punjabis who have at least 100 years of sikh ancestry, have Sikh principles and beliefs, and practiced it culturally. Sikh ancestry is your father, mother, grandmothers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, great-grandmothers, etc. are Punjabi Sikh. I believe that people from a different background who convert to sikhism should not call themselves Sikh but they should instead say they practice it. If the convert practices it truthfully for a long time and are known in the community, you will be still considered as a practicing Sikh. You are a practicing Sikh even when you die.  You will never be a Sikh in the sense of race given your ethnicity and past heritage (sorry to say this). For example, if my kids see a white or a Pakistani Muslim practicing the Sikh religion, I would not call him/her a Sikh. Instead, I would say he/she is practicing our Sikh religion. Also, you're full Sikh if you're born into a Sikh family with no heritage mixing going back 100 years and stick with your Sikh beliefs until the day you die. It gets complicated when you talk about amritdhari. It's a 100% chance that if you have 100 years of Sikh ancestry , at least one of your ancestors practiced amritdhari. In that case, it is fine for descendants to call themselves sikh but do not practice amritdhari. However, they would still have Sikh beliefs and practice culturally (going to gurdwara, doing seva, etc.)

I can tell you a bit information about myself. I was given an European first name. I am Punjabi and I am brown. I wear a Kara sometimes and I cut my hair. I wear a turban on special occasions. When I was 0-4 years old, I used to have a joora.  But there's something inside of me that just makes me identify as sikh. I remember fondly my grandfather who was a true khalsa Sikh teach me math every Sunday when he came to visit me. I can trace my blood line back to early 1800s and every ancestor of mine was a Punjabi Jat Sikh. No ancestor of mine was a Muslim, christain, black, arab, Hispanic, hindu, white,  or biracial.

There are cases where a Sikh has a marriage with a non sikh and raise a family. Those children would be considered half Sikhs as long as they believe they are Sikh and practice it (doesn't have to be amritdhari). Few exceptions, mixed children have higher claim to being full sikh if the father was Sikh but the mother was not. If the mixed children marry other Sikhs and have kids, then those kids claim to being full Sikh will be higher.

To conclude, Sikhism is not just a religion. It is a race. I identify as a Sikh because I have a Punjabi background tracing back over 100 years of Sikh ancestry. For people who don't meet this requirement, you can still say you practice the Sikh religion and please continue to do so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jigsaw_Puzzled_Singh
Quote

To conclude, Sikhism is not just a religion. It is a race.

Well that is not just a proposition you've made................In the UK it is the Law of the land.

According to UK Law (Mandla vs Dowell-Lee [1982] the Sikhs are not just a religion but a distinct race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 10:48 AM, Guest CanadianSikh94 said:

There is a difference between believing the Sikh religion and calling yourself a Sikh. I believe that Sikh is an ethnogroup of Punjabis who have at least 100 years of sikh ancestry, have Sikh principles and beliefs, and practiced it culturally. Sikh ancestry is your father, mother, grandmothers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, great-grandmothers, etc. are Punjabi Sikh. I believe that people from a different background who convert to sikhism should not call themselves Sikh but they should instead say they practice it. If the convert practices it truthfully for a long time and are known in the community, you will be still considered as a practicing Sikh. You are a practicing Sikh even when you die.  You will never be a Sikh in the sense of race given your ethnicity and past heritage (sorry to say this). For example, if my kids see a white or a Pakistani Muslim practicing the Sikh religion, I would not call him/her a Sikh. Instead, I would say he/she is practicing our Sikh religion. Also, you're full Sikh if you're born into a Sikh family with no heritage mixing going back 100 years and stick with your Sikh beliefs until the day you die. It gets complicated when you talk about amritdhari. It's a 100% chance that if you have 100 years of Sikh ancestry , at least one of your ancestors practiced amritdhari. In that case, it is fine for descendants to call themselves sikh but do not practice amritdhari. However, they would still have Sikh beliefs and practice culturally (going to gurdwara, doing seva, etc.)

I can tell you a bit information about myself. I was given an European first name. I am Punjabi and I am brown. I wear a Kara sometimes and I cut my hair. I wear a turban on special occasions. When I was 0-4 years old, I used to have a joora.  But there's something inside of me that just makes me identify as sikh. I remember fondly my grandfather who was a true khalsa Sikh teach me math every Sunday when he came to visit me. I can trace my blood line back to early 1800s and every ancestor of mine was a Punjabi Jat Sikh. No ancestor of mine was a Muslim, christain, black, arab, Hispanic, hindu, white,  or biracial.

There are cases where a Sikh has a marriage with a non sikh and raise a family. Those children would be considered half Sikhs as long as they believe they are Sikh and practice it (doesn't have to be amritdhari). Few exceptions, mixed children have higher claim to being full sikh if the father was Sikh but the mother was not. If the mixed children marry other Sikhs and have kids, then those kids claim to being full Sikh will be higher.

To conclude, Sikhism is not just a religion. It is a race. I identify as a Sikh because I have a Punjabi background tracing back over 100 years of Sikh ancestry. For people who don't meet this requirement, you can still say you practice the Sikh religion and please continue to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

This is one of the stupidest posts that I have seen on here. Sikhi is not restricted to one ethnic group.

The privilege that you think you are entitled to, just because 150 years ago or whatever someone in your family was amritdhari, is disgusting.

 

At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless. Through your actions you have renounced the Sikh religion.

You can identify as whatever you want, but at the the end  of the day, you are just another stupid Punjabi jatt (who makes me embarrassed to be jatt)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

 

 

This is one of the stupidest posts that I have seen on here. Sikhi is not restricted to one ethnic group.

The privilege that you think you are entitled to, just because 150 years ago or whatever someone in your family was amritdhari, is disgusting.

 

At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless. Through your actions you have renounced the Sikh religion.

You can identify as whatever you want, but at the the end  of the day, you are just another stupid Punjabi jatt (who makes me embarrassed to be jatt)

according to the law a race can be defined as a group of people who either have a shared religion/scripture/culture/script/language  or live in a specific geographical or originated from said region , sikhs qualify as a race under both(either or both) regardless of skin colour or ethnicity , so please do not be hateful towards each other , converts share our sikh culture  and faith , the punjabi also share our geography and language (hopefully if they still speak it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

according to the law

What law? 

Who made this law? 

Okay, certain people manipulated existing foreign laws to gain certain legal advantages in diaspora communities, but to genuinely believe in that crap is ridiculous. 

No Sikhs are not a 'race'. In time, the process of a broadening of racial backgrounds in the community (that has already started) will accelerate. Confining ourselves to narrow 'racial' ideologies is straight mental, and goes against everything Sikhi is. Look at the backgrounds of the panj piaray to open your minds and see things for what they are. 

 

Only in Canada would we get silly ideas like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Still waiting for the ethnic tick box 

do you reckon that will happen here?   jews come from all races and cultures yet they are classified as one people, thats how they want it anyway 

Share this post


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

do you reckon that will happen here?   jews come from all races and cultures yet they are classified as one people, thats how they want it anyway 

The Sikh Federation are pushing hard for it.

There is a census in 2021. 

The Jews claim they originated from one tribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The Sikh Federation are pushing hard for it.

There is a census in 2021. 

The Jews claim they originated from one tribe.

i dont think its a bad idea     either way       i remember lord indarjit was against it

yh i doubt they come from one tribe, the European ones are mostly converts.  they say they come from the line of abraham-isac-joseph-jacob.   bs really 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless.

thats not nice     they are still sikh 

Share this post


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

i dont think its a bad idea     either way       i remember lord indarjit was against it

yh i doubt they come from one tribe, the European ones are mostly converts.  they say they come from the line of abraham-isac-joseph-jacob.   bs really 

 

The Sikh Federation says there will be a lot of benefits from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Singh
38 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The Sikh Federation says there will be a lot of benefits from it.

Foremost of which will be that the number of Sikhs enumerated will reduce - making Sikhs in the UK even more irrelevant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, puzzled said:

thats not nice     they are still sikh 

 

Why did you take my words out of context?

 

I said:

"At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless. Through your actions you have renounced the Sikh religion."

This means, his actions show what he thinks and what really matters to him.

 

 

It doesn't matter if I say something nice or say something that's not nice.

It doesn't matter what you think or what I think or what he thinks.

 

EVERY TIME he shaves, EVERY TIME he gets a haircut, he is renouncing his faith in Sikhi

 

He has made it clear where he stands by his actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

What law? 

Who made this law? 

Okay, certain people manipulated existing foreign laws to gain certain legal advantages in diaspora communities, but to genuinely believe in that crap is ridiculous. 

No Sikhs are not a 'race'. In time, the process of a broadening of racial backgrounds in the community (that has already started) will accelerate. Confining ourselves to narrow 'racial' ideologies is straight mental, and goes against everything Sikhi is. Look at the backgrounds of the panj piaray to open your minds and see things for what they are. 

 

Only in Canada would we get silly ideas like this. 

the race relations act in UK protects the jews and sikhs as races ... and the definiton I gave is the one in the new US census .
Sikhs are one race as Guru ji defined us , one varna , one race - human  chill dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest daas guest singh
10 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

 

 

This is one of the stupidest posts that I have seen on here. Sikhi is not restricted to one ethnic group.

The privilege that you think you are entitled to, just because 150 years ago or whatever someone in your family was amritdhari, is disgusting.

 

At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless. Through your actions you have renounced the Sikh religion.

You can identify as whatever you want, but at the the end  of the day, you are just another stupid Punjabi jatt (who makes me embarrassed to be jatt)

Ur absolutely right mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • did u see horror things also  , like ghosts etc 
    • Puratan Singhs used to keep the tusk of wild boar in their dumalla or gatra to irritate the Muslims.
    • Contrary to domestic pigs, wild pigs r very clean animals. When Hunter shoots a wild hog, the hog becomes very aggressive and runs towards the direction from where the bullet came and dies on the way. Puratan Singhs loved the meat of wild hog. It's very tasty and good for health.
    • @proactive This fellow thinks we are the same person. He reckons he can wind us up. 
    • There's a system to what they do in these situations on television. It's something I've observed for a while now, and there's a definite structure to it. They have a contentious subject and they invite two people who will argue their respective opposing viewpoints on that particular subject. There's the reactionary, leftist viewpoint which is usually represented by a journalist from the Guardian or a figure with a fringe Leftist organisation. The other participant is someone who represents what would traditionally be seen as the Right-wing viewpoint, but it's not really Right at all; it's what some would assume to be a fuddy-duddy, traditional perspective of the Little Englander who's stuck in the past, but is actually what we recognise as the classic liberal before the Commies took over the Left. Morgan may seem like the level-headed, perhaps conservative (small C) voice of reason who speaks on behalf of the average viewer, but even then the so-called debate never transcends the neo-liberal paradigm in which the discussion takes place. Depending on the final outcome of the debate, or the suggested ideological direction these programmes would like the audience at home to gravitate to, Morgan directs the discussion to that place with his brusque interventions and domineering behaviour. The genius of this charade is that it manages to push the average viewer, which is whom these debates actually target, into agreeing with an argument not on its merits or its values, but based on whoever makes the strongest appeals to the pre-existing sentiment of the viewer. Then there's the whole issue of the Overton Window and what's allowed in public discourse, etc., but that's a subject for another day.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use