Interesting photo and story -Jamadar Arjan Singh

[proactive]

Arjan Singh - came from Argentina to England to join the army and fight in WW1. Apparently he knew Spanish and had worked on the railways.

 

 

Sadly he didn't survive the war as there is a memorial in San Pedro Argentina which lists his name as those who went from Argentina to fight in the war and did not survive.

 

[dallysingh101]

15 hours ago, proactive said:

Arjan Singh - came from Argentina to England to join the army and fight in WW1. Apparently he knew Spanish and had worked on the railways.

 

 

Sadly he didn't survive the war as there is a memorial in San Pedro Argentina which lists his name as those who went from Argentina to fight in the war and did not survive.

 

Here you go with you colonial era shyte. 

[proactive]

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Here you go with you colonial era shyte. 

It was the lived experience of millions of Sikhs. I would venture that Arjan Singh was a more articulate, sophisticated and adventurous person than someone like you who gets triggered at any mention of Sikhs in the army in WW1 or WW2. Whatever your views about him, he deserves to be honoured as do all those Sikhs who left Punjab to fight in both world wars. 

Another 'illiterate pendu' I found apparently this 'pendu' went on earn a PhD and fought the racist citizenship policies of the USA.

 

[GurjantGnostic]

@dalsingh101 doesn't object for no reason. It's because people get used and tricked into serving armies beneath them, ones that undermine their own people's self determination. 

He says colonialism shyte, because Sikhs among many other peoples have been mentally groomed to be good loyal soldiers and die for the opressor. 

I have full respect for the Veer serving and all that, especially dying, but he's supposed to do that for Guru Ki Fauj. Then he'd be Shaheed not a casualty. Depending on the exact circumstances of his death, maybe he is Shaheed, but see the point?

Some black families disown their kids if they become a cop or soldier. Not because they don't love their kid, but because those professions are disreputable when done for imperials. You betray your people to engage in them. Clear example cops in hindustan. 

Sorry can't find the Gurbani. It's a long list of professions that only if done for Akal and the Paanth have any value. 

Shoot was that Gurbani or Vidya during a Katha? Any help?

[GurjantGnostic]

Sort of a weird analogy. But look at the two sides of the same coin, they call bipartisan politics in the united states. Every four years they give us increasingly worse ..candidates.  Neither of which should be president, then based upon on fears and sentiments towards the loaded issues they have purposefully divied up, so each party has their core tenets, they supposedly represent, so that people will cling to them, we divide ourselves, from each other based upon which absolutely morally destitute meat puppet we're "voting" for. In fact ...proud ...of it. Facepalm. When we all should not only be ashamed to vote for someone unless they're worthy, but in fact refuse, and only ever vote based on merit. That's the only way the representatives will ever have merit. And that means being willing to cast your lot with small parties that may very well appear to lose at first, but even in that initial phase the most important victory is struck and the influence increases.

The world wars were civil wars between imperials. I mean the first one popped off over rich boys shooting each other, and their families calling the entire world into warfare over it. Body count for wwI could have been...1....

So which side of that should Singhs be on? Well neither. They should be in a smaller third party, the one with merit, regardless of it has a chance of "winning" this "election" and "running" and "voting" anyway and influencing others to do the same. 

The odd enlistee, who serves, and then returns to the Paanth to train others, or one who joins to engage in spefic action against a specific target, are the only ones we'd see optimally, Karmically and Dharmically. 

Am I proud of my Grandfather for fighting the nazis, as a half german man himself, and killing the adult officer of a nazi youth brigade by hitting him with the butt of his rifle to silence his orders to the children to fight to the death rather than surrender? Sure. But america was segregated at that time. Slavery breeding farms and sales continued to be found and prosecuted until 1954, so we're freeing fake jews, but real human beings, in germany and poland etc, but have black slaves? Have american units killing the black american soldiers after the war for drinking with white brits? Irony it was primarily Jacobites trafficked from africa.  So freed fake jews, but real people, still have real Jew slaves, and slaughtered the ones that saved the fake jews after it was done. Bravo. Further layer of irony is hitler pointed this out himself. <banned word filter activated> hitler and all, burn in Narak, just sayin. 

Fast forward, I run into nazis in our own military, and we support them in ukraine as does the israelis? Wtflol?

Grandfather lost his leg, and his mental emotional wellbeing for life. So am I proud of him? Yes but I wish he just didn't get drafted in his later twenties with kids already. To fight for plantation slavers vs nazis. 

I would be more proud and happier if he'd joined a Nihang Fauj, stayed home, and fought the injustices of white supremacy in all its forms no matter the cost to him. Even if he had to legally declare his service in the Fauj precludes his service in any other, and risked jail or even death by cop. That would have served Dharam more directly. Draft enforcers? And those that enact drafts? Lives are subject to being revoked at any and all times lol. 

<banned word filter activated> white power. Fight in Faujs only. 

[GurjantGnostic]

Jewish opression lasted the span of wwII, the opression of Jews goes back to babylon and continues to this day. This is why you can't emulate jewish people or israel. They're imperials in Jacobite clothing. You have to re assess everything about them from the point of view of them being a very prominent, not entirely liked, community within the world wide white supremacy network, with ties back to the original invasion. They know a lot about Jews, they've been persecuting them for thousands of years. If they can extinct the real Jews then they think they inherit Jacobs gifts from Issac back as well as keep Essaus. 

[proactive]

7 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

@dalsingh101 doesn't object for no reason. It's because people get used and tricked into serving armies beneath them, ones that undermine their own people's self determination. 

He says colonialism shyte, because Sikhs among many other peoples have been mentally groomed to be good loyal soldiers and die for the opressor. 

I have full respect for the Veer serving and all that, especially dying, but he's supposed to do that for Guru Ki Fauj. Then he'd be Shaheed not a casualty. Depending on the exact circumstances of his death, maybe he is Shaheed, but see the point?

Some black families disown their kids if they become a cop or soldier. Not because they don't love their kid, but because those professions are disreputable when done for imperials. You betray your people to engage in them. Clear example cops in hindustan. 

Sorry can't find the Gurbani. It's a long list of professions that only if done for Akal and the Paanth have any value. 

Shoot was that Gurbani or Vidya during a Katha? Any help?

Thank you for rationalising and explaining in a far better way Daily's view than possibly he could have done and especially without the use of the derogatory 'pendu' and 'illiterate' pejoratives. Trying to judge the actions of those especially those separated from us by by over a 100 years without understanding the factors at play in the lives of those people is not very fair. This is especially true of Daily as he has virtually no understanding of rural Punjab even today when he could easily get on an aeroplane and go there is under 9 hours so expecting him to understand rural Punjab of 100 years ago would be a big stretch. 

Let's accept Daily's characterisation of those Sikhs of 100 years ago as 'pendus' 'illiterate' and even 'slaves' as he never tires of describing them. Let's instead look at your own people, the Irish. One could excuse the 200,000 Irish men and women who fought in the first world war for the British as enslaved people forced by their circumstances to join and fight in the army of their colonial masters. But what would then explain the over 70,000 Irish men and women from the Irish republic who fought for the British in WW2? This far surpassed the 35,000 volunteers from 'loyalist'  Northern Ireland. While Punjab during both world wars was under British colonial control, the Irish republic was free from the 1920s so why would the Irish fight for their former colonial masters especially as there was an Irish army available for them to join or even opportunities to migrate to America or Canada at that time if the main reason for joining the British army was just economic reasons. Similar to the way that these Sikhs joined the army in the first and second world wars, these youths had a sense of adventure, they wanted to see the world, they wanted to improve the economic circumstances of their families.

The difference between the Irish and Sikhs was that while the Irish were never a minority in Ireland, the Sikhs were a small minority in Punjab and as such they had to compete with the two other communities i for government jobs and allocation of educational institutions in their areas. As a small minority the Sikhs had to punch above their weight otherwise they would be subsumed by the other two communities. Part of the punching above their weight had to do with providing recruits in number far greater than their population warranted. 

 

[dallysingh101]

14 hours ago, proactive said:

Thank you for rationalising and explaining in a far better way Daily's view than possibly he could have done and especially without the use of the derogatory 'pendu' and 'illiterate' pejoratives. Trying to judge the actions of those especially those separated from us by by over a 100 years without understanding the factors at play in the lives of those people is not very fair. This is especially true of Daily as he has virtually no understanding of rural Punjab even today when he could easily get on an aeroplane and go there is under 9 hours so expecting him to understand rural Punjab of 100 years ago would be a big stretch. 

Let's accept Daily's characterisation of those Sikhs of 100 years ago as 'pendus' 'illiterate' and even 'slaves' as he never tires of describing them. Let's instead look at your own people, the Irish. One could excuse the 200,000 Irish men and women who fought in the first world war for the British as enslaved people forced by their circumstances to join and fight in the army of their colonial masters. But what would then explain the over 70,000 Irish men and women from the Irish republic who fought for the British in WW2? This far surpassed the 35,000 volunteers from 'loyalist'  Northern Ireland. While Punjab during both world wars was under British colonial control, the Irish republic was free from the 1920s so why would the Irish fight for their former colonial masters especially as there was an Irish army available for them to join or even opportunities to migrate to America or Canada at that time if the main reason for joining the British army was just economic reasons. Similar to the way that these Sikhs joined the army in the first and second world wars, these youths had a sense of adventure, they wanted to see the world, they wanted to improve the economic circumstances of their families.

The difference between the Irish and Sikhs was that while the Irish were never a minority in Ireland, the Sikhs were a small minority in Punjab and as such they had to compete with the two other communities i for government jobs and allocation of educational institutions in their areas. As a small minority the Sikhs had to punch above their weight otherwise they would be subsumed by the other two communities. Part of the punching above their weight had to do with providing recruits in number far greater than their population warranted. 

 

Let's cut to the chase. 'Sikhs' fighting for other people's wars, for their own pockets. Who didn't have the foresight or vision (or intelligence?) to grasp what was brewing under their nose, in their own 'beloved' homeland, that led to the greatest holocaust of Sikhs to date (as well as mass rapes and kidnappings). 

Bravo. Let's have more of these types of mercenary 'soldiers', who protect foreigners better than their own. Maybe next time they could do even better and have a million of us killed/raped? 

[Ranjeet01]

On 3/21/2022 at 5:17 AM, proactive said:

Thank you for rationalising and explaining in a far better way Daily's view than possibly he could have done and especially without the use of the derogatory 'pendu' and 'illiterate' pejoratives. Trying to judge the actions of those especially those separated from us by by over a 100 years without understanding the factors at play in the lives of those people is not very fair. This is especially true of Daily as he has virtually no understanding of rural Punjab even today when he could easily get on an aeroplane and go there is under 9 hours so expecting him to understand rural Punjab of 100 years ago would be a big stretch. 

Let's accept Daily's characterisation of those Sikhs of 100 years ago as 'pendus' 'illiterate' and even 'slaves' as he never tires of describing them. Let's instead look at your own people, the Irish. One could excuse the 200,000 Irish men and women who fought in the first world war for the British as enslaved people forced by their circumstances to join and fight in the army of their colonial masters. But what would then explain the over 70,000 Irish men and women from the Irish republic who fought for the British in WW2? This far surpassed the 35,000 volunteers from 'loyalist'  Northern Ireland. While Punjab during both world wars was under British colonial control, the Irish republic was free from the 1920s so why would the Irish fight for their former colonial masters especially as there was an Irish army available for them to join or even opportunities to migrate to America or Canada at that time if the main reason for joining the British army was just economic reasons. Similar to the way that these Sikhs joined the army in the first and second world wars, these youths had a sense of adventure, they wanted to see the world, they wanted to improve the economic circumstances of their families.

The difference between the Irish and Sikhs was that while the Irish were never a minority in Ireland, the Sikhs were a small minority in Punjab and as such they had to compete with the two other communities i for government jobs and allocation of educational institutions in their areas. As a small minority the Sikhs had to punch above their weight otherwise they would be subsumed by the other two communities. Part of the punching above their weight had to do with providing recruits in number far greater than their population warranted. 

 

You are right that it was a different era and people had different values then.

If you think about it many people volunteered to fight in wars such as the Spanish Civil War. 

In our culture, martyrdom (even in whatever guise even if it is misguided) is seen as a badge of honour and not fighting was seen as cowardice. 

 

[dallysingh101]

20 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

In our culture, martyrdom (even in whatever guise even if it is misguided) is seen as a badge of honour and not fighting was seen as cowardice. 

Dying for a foreign sovereign, whose armies had invaded your land and subjugated your people, is not shaheedi, however people might try and twist it.

Look, the fact is, between Sikh males, what's now more apparent than ever, is that when we mess up strategically/tactically/socially/militarily, it's our own women folk that suffer the most, and that too in horrendous ways. We might die, they get horrific, abusive treatment, sometimes over sustained periods of time that most can't protect themselves from. This is a complete failure on our part as men. 

There were always counter-colonial movements amongst our own, the Ghadr party being a relatively well known one, so some of our people were fighting for their own freedom, as opposed to fighting for foreign invaders. If people wanted to 'prove' their bravery, they could've fought for these types of movements, and be true shaheeds. 

In the end, what we have to say is that the precarious position we found ourselves in, with the mass rapes, kidnappings and murders (that'll numerically make what's happening in ukraine right now seem tame - and I'm pretty sure the same could be said about a lot of recent, more prominent conflicts), can never be repeated by our community because we've got hordes of apnay whose minds, bodies and souls are elsewhere, chasing some outsider concept of 'valour' -  it's a complete failure on our part. I'd say it was the most disastrous path ever followed by our people, and boy did we pay for it! 

You talk about people not fighting being seen as cowards - well, I disagree. We know loads of press-ganging was going on. We know alleviating poverty was more of a factor in decisions than what you are saying. Besides, look at the example of Muhhamad Ali - he never fought in the Vietnam war and gave cogent, intelligent and morally upright reasons for this. That was braver than being herded into another people's conflict - and we can see how grateful the people fought for were, by how they left us to our own devices to be murdered and slaughtered, and then didn't even bother to the give the sepoys who fought in ww2 a pension in the end.   

Seems like high level stupid decisions on our people's part, that we need to acknowledge and confront, lest some <banned word filter activated> tries to lead us up this route again in future.  These aren't remotely intelligent policies or strategies. We can't afford to be doing this.