Jump to content

Kamala Harris history with Sikhs


Kau89r8
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

doesn't matter which side you look at , they will both toe the Indian govt line to get trade deals  and thus Sikhs will be the football yet again . Sikhs need to wake up whereever they are , and support their own and protect OUR sikh traditions, buildings, history  and ethos from being diluted by brahmins, SJWs , communists etc etc the list is long .

Business is business.

The powers that be remain power whichever government is in power. 

If you think about it, the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum are exactly the same.

It is not linear, it's circular. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Business is business.

The powers that be remain power whichever government is in power. 

If you think about it, the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum are exactly the same.

It is not linear, it's circular. 

and we are here to live another way outside the cultural narrative of these false constructs ... be an individual who lives in a conscious collective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

and we are here to live another way outside the cultural narrative of these false constructs ... be an individual who lives in a conscious collective

Then why are you still partial to certain factions within this spectrum that the system deems to be acceptable and virtuous? Don't you see the blind spot you've developed purely on the bias' you possess? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is deemed as Democrat and Republican is seen as right wing and left wing.

However, compared to the UK politics both parties are more deemed to be on the right of the politic spectrum.

There are things which are seen as 'right' values that align with Sikhi and there are values on the 'left' that align with Sikhi. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

What is deemed as Democrat and Republican is seen as right wing and left wing.

However, compared to the UK politics both parties are more deemed to be on the right of the politic spectrum.

There are things which are seen as 'right' values that align with Sikhi and there are values on the 'left' that align with Sikhi. 

 

 

That's why it annoys me when self-proclaiming Sikhs try to push the image and the ethos of the religion in one particular direction based on what they think tallies with the Western political and social paradigm of which they're familiar, usually without even having read Sikh scriptures or gained a brief understanding of its basic philosophy.

Apparently, it's too much work to think outside or beyond the prescribed limits, and they'd rather shoehorn themselves and the religion into a pre-existing system that isn't even analogous to it's actual meaning and methods. 

This also means that because Sikhi is neither Left nor Right, it also ISN'T Centrist. That's a fatal mistake made by some of us in the West. The distinctions are subtle and fine, and entirely lost on the brusque and often coarse discourse that passes for mainstream thought in today's age. 

Another problem is the subtle self-hating mentality possessed by foreign Sikhs raised on Western education who assume that because of its earthy, humble origins in a part of the less developed world, Sikhi is somehow inferior and irrelevant next to the civilisation-defining philosophies of the West. Again, that's intellectual laziness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

That's why it annoys me when self-proclaiming Sikhs try to push the image and the ethos of the religion in one particular direction based on what they think tallies with the Western political and social paradigm of which they're familiar, usually without even having read Sikh scriptures or gained a brief understanding of its basic philosophy.

Apparently, it's too much work to think outside or beyond the prescribed limits, and they'd rather shoehorn themselves and the religion into a pre-existing system that isn't even analogous to it's actual meaning and methods. 

This also means that because Sikhi is neither Left nor Right, it also ISN'T Centrist. That's a fatal mistake made by some of us in the West. The distinctions are subtle and fine, and entirely lost on the brusque and often coarse discourse that passes for mainstream thought in today's age. 

We got get out of dualist thinking.

There are people that think that the US second amendment (the right to bear arms) should be got rid off.

If as Sikhs we are supposed keep shasters and we see our Sants like Bhindrawale armed with guns, how can we go against the 2nd amendment in the US.

The Americans have that 2nd amendment so that their government does not get too c0cky and to defend their liberties. 

That sounds quite similar to us Sikh ethos of being armed and defending against oppression. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's no different to war criminal Barack Obama. The man who started wars in Libya and Syria and was then given the Nobel Peace Prize. Their skin colour allows them to get away with this, if a white person had done what Obama did he would have been ridiculed like George Bush was.

Say what you will about Trump but he at least hasn't invaded a new country and things seem to be relatively calmer in the middle east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

We got get out of dualist thinking.

There are people that think that the US second amendment (the right to bear arms) should be got rid off.

If as Sikhs we are supposed keep shasters and we see our Sants like Bhindrawale armed with guns, how can we go against the 2nd amendment in the US.

The Americans have that 2nd amendment so that their government does not get too c0cky and to defend their liberties. 

That sounds quite similar to us Sikh ethos of being armed and defending against oppression. 

It's like if we talk about protecting and feeding the weakest and most vulnerable in society, as directed by Sikh ethics, that would be considered by Right-wingers as a form of Socialism; that if people can't provide for themselves they shouldn't be a burden on other productive members of society. They should get tough and sort themselves out. That's where our spiritual aspect enters, because we're told that it is a virtue to uplift and protect those who cannot do so themselves. There's a difference between helping the destitute, and then being taken advantage of by lazy and cynical charlatans. Again, it's that fine line.

Equally, the incident with Guru Gobind Singh and the Mahants would be categorised by a liberal as cold blooded savagery, but again they fail to understand that by Guru Sahib undertaking that one act, they sent a message to others within the Panth that sangat's churaava is not to be funnelled for personal profit. It's only in recent times that the likes of the SGPC have begun to misuse sangat's daswand for frivolous means. With Guru Sahib's admittedly one decisive act, they prevented a dodgy situation from spiralling into something irreversible. That too was the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Then why are you still partial to certain factions within this spectrum that the system deems to be acceptable and virtuous? Don't you see the blind spot you've developed purely on the bias' you possess? 

hating oppression in all its forms  can seem as if I lean into the SJWs backyard but I don't ...we are all humans animals living in a massive goldfish bowl and it would be stupid and blind to think what we do as individuals and groups doesn't sway the effect in this realm . Guru ji wouldn't have told us the methods by which to live in control of  our instinctual selves and strive to put our small minds on the back burner by placing our true core as master  if we weren't part of a greater wave of consciouness needed to counter the kalyugi mentality of the current times .

We have to succeed where the others failed , to bring 'heaven' to Earth, starting with our own people .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

We got get out of dualist thinking.

There are people that think that the US second amendment (the right to bear arms) should be got rid off.

If as Sikhs we are supposed keep shasters and we see our Sants like Bhindrawale armed with guns, how can we go against the 2nd amendment in the US.

The Americans have that 2nd amendment so that their government does not get too c0cky and to defend their liberties. 

That sounds quite similar to us Sikh ethos of being armed and defending against oppression. 

 

I agree with the right to bear arms, but sadly the goray in the US are spouting all this stuff about liberty and freedom on land that they themselves stole and committed genocide on. So Sikhs are in a different position to them.

But I have heard from young US Sikhs that most Panjabi apnay parents out there are averse to shasters/ashters - says it all.  

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