Jump to content

Interesting Article | Interpretation of Sikh History from a Non-Sikh


Recommended Posts

It panders to us; I read a lot of flattery in the above article. It also overlooks the affection with which the very early founding Sikhs had for the Sufi strand of Islam that was incorporated into the Sikh belief system.

As a brief primer it's okay I suppose but its not the total picture. I guess it focuses on the martial aspect but does seem to neglect the deeper, philosophical side of things. I guess trying to introduce what are quite conflicting ideas into one simple article would be a bit much.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Better than most the "khalistani terrorist", or docile servenet, garbage people get paid to write. 

It might be interpreted as a piece designed to get the adrenaline pumping; to manipulate those of us who are easily excitable into leaping head-first into battles as a way of apparently honouring our ancestors' sacrifice; to refresh the memory of those of us who've forgotten about the ancient enemy that descended from the sands of Arabia. If I was a suspicious guy I'd think this was an article that wanted to achieve all those things. That's almost as damaging as the vindictive, hateful narrative of the Indian media.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

It might be interpreted as a piece designed to get the adrenaline pumping; to manipulate those of us who are easily excitable into leaping head-first into battles as a way of apparently honouring our ancestors' sacrifice; to refresh the memory of those of us who've forgotten about the ancient enemy that descended from the sands of Arabia. If I was a suspicious guy I'd think this was an article that wanted to achieve all those things. That's almost as damaging as the vindictive, hateful narrative of the Indian media.

I just think it's a simplified narrative designed to inspire a bit of fearlessness in Sikhs. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  There will always be some people who will misinterpret and maybe fly off the handle due to their own personality traits, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such accounts. 

I tend to see these things as stepping stones or entry points for people to explore the ithihaas/culture in more depth.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I just think it's a simplified narrative designed to inspire a bit of fearlessness in Sikhs. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  There will always be some people who will misinterpret and maybe fly off the handle due to their own personality traits, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such accounts.

If it was confirmed that a British white guy wrote that piece, you'd be all over it, castigating it as establishment propaganda designed to get us to fight under the banners of ex-imperial powers for their modern colonial escapades. You're very selective with what you choose to object to: it's not the actual substance of the message that annoys you but the vessel in which the message is delivered, yes?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

If it was confirmed that a British white guy wrote that piece, you'd be all over it, castigating it as establishment propaganda designed to get us to fight under the banners of ex-imperial powers for their modern colonial escapades. You're very selective with what you choose to object to: it's not the actual substance of the message that annoys you but the vessel in which the message is delivered, yes?

No, I just think you constantly over analyse the wrong stuff. This is just some simple bod 'boosted' interpretation of Sikh history from a purely physical perspective (as opposed to spiritual). What it seems to be trying to do is amplify Sikh bravery and independence in a very simplistic manner.  It's not dissimilar to what I've heard Sikh street guys talking just prior to going out to kick off with another group. 

I don't think you can read very well, compared to a lot of stuff, at least this piece somewhat underscores a perspective that doesn't co-opt Sikhs to other causes. And if a brit white guy wrote this (below), he'd be being more honest than the vast majority of the rest of his people (even though the guy is obviously ignorant of the modern nature of the Sikh army under Sikh raj with his swords against canons comment). If he was a proper brit he'd be telling us about how grateful our lot were to be subjugated and used and abused by the colonialists:

The Sikhs were better fighters than the Moghuls, when the numbers and the guns were anything like equal, and by the time the Brits arrived, they’d carved out their own state in the Punjab. They fought the Brits twice, swords against cannon, and were slaughtered, then flattered, then coopted—the classic Imperial method of dealing with brave but dumb cannon fodder, as in “Our dear Highlanders,” cannon fodder in cute kilts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

No, I just think you constantly over analyse the wrong stuff. This is just some simple bod 'boosted' interpretation of Sikh history from a purely physical perspective (as opposed to spiritual). What it seems to be trying to do is amplify Sikh bravery and independence in a very simplistic manner.  It's not dissimilar to what I've heard Sikh street guys talking just prior to going out to kick off with another group. 

I don't think you can read very well, compared to a lot of stuff, at least this piece somewhat underscores a perspective that doesn't co-opt Sikhs to other causes. And if a brit white guy wrote this (below), he'd be being more honest than the vast majority of the rest of his people (even though the guy is obviously ignorant of the modern nature of the Sikh army under Sikh raj with his swords against canons comment). If he was a proper brit he'd be telling us about how grateful our lot were to be subjugated and used and abused by the colonialists.

I think you've been unable to read between the lines and grasp the subtext of the article. It's a clear attempt at pitting Sikhs against some nebulous form of Islam, by equating medieval Mughal expansionism with its various contemporary terror-related forms.

British-penned propaganda or a general West vs Islam perspective, it's doing exactly what you constantly highlight on this forum about us being "recruited" by outsiders as fodder.  The playful and almost throwaway tone of the article and its vernacular is also cringeworthy.

Am I suggesting we leap into bed with Islam and its adherents? No. But I don't like attempts by outsiders trying to mine our painful and blood-soaked history to manipulate us into following whatever current strand of policy they've devised against one of the existential dangers facing them.

Equally, intention counts for a lot. If the guy's aim was to flatter Sikhs and shed light on a quaint and once-proud warrior race, then fair enough. But I don't take things like this on face value. There's always a purpose behind it however faint. Your cheap little attempts at psycho-analysing and shaming me into conforming to your worldview isn't working and it never will.

EDIT: Having just flicked through the website from which the article originates my suspicions were correct. It's a moderately right-leaning Spectator-esque online zine.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

I think you've been unable to read between the lines and grasp the subtext of the article. It's a clear attempt at pitting Sikhs against some nebulous form of Islam, by equating medieval Mughal expansionism with its various contemporary terror-related forms.

British-penned propaganda or a general West vs Islam perspective, it's doing exactly what you constantly highlight on this forum about us being "recruited" by outsiders as fodder.  The playful and almost throwaway tone of the article and its vernacular is also cringeworthy.

Am I suggesting we leap into bed with Islam and its adherents? No. But I don't like attempts by outsiders trying to mine our painful and blood-soaked history to manipulate us into following whatever current strand of policy they've devised against one of the existential dangers facing them.

Equally, intention counts for a lot. If the guy's aim was to flatter Sikhs and shed light on a quaint and once-proud warrior race, then fair enough. But I don't take things like this on face value. There's always a purpose behind it however faint. Your cheap little attempts at psycho-analysing and shaming me into conforming to your worldview isn't working and it never will.

EDIT: Having just flicked through the website from which the article originates my suspicions were correct. It's a moderately right-leaning Spectator-esque online zine.

probably written by a NRA  supporting American nutjob who wants to big up sikhs to get them onside against musley, typically he even told you what he is up to in the article.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

probably written by a NRA  supporting American nutjob who wants to big up sikhs to get them onside against musley, typically he even told you what he is up to in the article.

He probably has more of a disposition than an angenda. At least he recognized the seperate and excellent nature of Sikhs. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of Christian identity these days is less about Jesus and more about being "not muslim".

So if they find some group that they deem having to go through what they are currently going through then the likelihood is that they will have some affinity with them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2021 at 5:47 PM, MisterrSingh said:

It's a clear attempt at pitting Sikhs against some nebulous form of Islam, by equating medieval Mughal expansionism with its various contemporary terror-related forms.

How the hell did you come to that conclusion??

If the piece had a disproportionate emphasis on Sikh-sullay wars, I'd think you might have some point. But clearly it hops onto modern conflicts with India. The section on brits is a dig, pretty much along the lines of 'you were not up to form on that conflict, and got bum-raped'.  If a white with even a tiny bit of supremacist thinking wrote it, that bit becomes predictable too.  In that you're good enough to fight these sullay and hindus but don't try it with us. 

 

Quote

Am I suggesting we leap into bed with Islam and its adherents? No. But I don't like attempts by outsiders trying to mine our painful and blood-soaked history to manipulate us into following whatever current strand of policy they've devised against one of the existential dangers facing them.

I'm ecstatic that some of you peasants are clocking onto that. Shame more didn't in the past, or you wouldn't have wasted all that blood and resources defending some foreign land's sovereignty (instead of your own) - twice. We need more to think like this so they won't be jumping into conflicts they have no business in. But saying that I expect to find a certain a bunch of id1ots still fighting for Panjab police, India, yadda yadda yaddaa. 

Quote

Equally, intention counts for a lot. If the guy's aim was to flatter Sikhs and shed light on a quaint and once-proud warrior race, then fair enough. But I don't take things like this on face value. There's always a purpose behind it however faint.

I think these lot (west) have been bum-raped by sullay so much now, that some may be trying to find some solace in finding accounts where their 'enemy' has been defeated. But like I allude to earlier, the piece covers more than that. If it makes some apna get hyped enough to jump into some conflict they have no business in - then I'm be inclined to think that person was some sort of top league dumbo. But then again, seeing as historically, hordes of certain apnay have done just this - I'm sort of getting your hawkishness.  But be aware, many of us our just too intelligent to fall for this type of hyping - it's the type of thing an oafish, dimwitted Panjabi mungo might fall for though I guess? 

Quote


Your cheap little attempts at psycho-analysing and shaming me into conforming to your worldview isn't working and it never will.

 

You don't half talk some shyte sometimes.   Are to saying that I tried to use long outdated and discredited Freudian 'psycho-analysis' techniques on you? Do you even know what you are saying? 

I wouldn't try and shame you into anything btw. You patently have no shame as is evident from your constant volte faces. lol

I still stand by my point that only a top level <banned word filter activated> would get manipulated into doing something rash by a piece like that. And I don't think it particularly highlighted sullay conflicts, it clearly mentioned other lines of contention. 

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...
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use