5 ms·

(Obvious Generalizations etc..) Sikhs are some of the hardest working and toughest people from the Indian Subcontinent. They also have a fearsome reputation in

(Obvious Generalizations etc..) Sikhs are some of the hardest working and toughest people from the Indian Subcontinent. They also have a fearsome reputation in the military and are considered one of the toughest Regiments of the Indian army. There are many stories where they have literally fought to the bitter end against overwhelming odds [1]. The great tragedy is that since 9/11 Sikhs have often been mistaken for afgans/arabs wearing turbans & discriminated against. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi

jeffbr13 11y ago
> The great tragedy is that since 9/11 Sikhs have often been mistaken for afgans/arabs wearing turbans & discriminated against. The greater tragedy is discrimination against Arabs based on racism and faulty heuristics for what a 'terrorist' looks like.
- pluma 11y ago
  One could argue that the heuristics are for what a Muslim looks like. In that sense the tragedy is that that Sikhs don't really have anything to do with Islam at all. That most Americans think of a beard and turban as a fool-proof indicator of the person being a Muslim of course shows a lack of consideration. How relevant moderates are to extremism is a separate question (and one that is largely orthogonal to the religion itself) but it's fair to say that no matter how little a moderate has to do with extremists, someone who isn't even a member of their religion in the first place is about as undeserving of hostility as it gets. I would argue the greater tragedies are that ethnicity frequently gets conflated with religion (which really serves no-one, unless your religion is incestuous) and that most people are too ignorant of other cultures than their own to tell them apart. Heck, there are still Americans who have a hard time accepting that Obama isn't Muslim just because he's not white (as if non-white Christianity hadn't ever been a thing in the US).
meIias 11y ago
Yeah how tragic, being mistaken for an Arab. I really hope that the denizens of HN can rise above the need to make foolhardy generalizations (good or bad) about large swathes of people. Maybe save that for your reddit account.
pluma 11y ago
I'm generally pretty biased against all religion by default but Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. It's pretty egalitarian, its followers are encouraged to defend the weak (and not just weak Sikhs either) and committing to its values and laws is an option that should only be taken after careful consideration rather than the default. The only negative thing I can think of is the insurgency in India of the 1970s and the assassination of Indira Gandhi, although I don't think it's fair to classify those events purely as religiously motivated violence (or even terrorism).
- ashark 11y ago
  I respect that they have a tradition that considers religious practice most valid when it occurs in the world[1]. Many other religions have strong ascetic and/or monastic traditions, and they tend to consider those practitioners to be, in some sense or other, the holiest. Retreat from the world tends to be the advised path for the purest, or at least most successful, pursuit of religious study and practice. Not the Sikhs. They're like, "Pft, that sounds like religion on easy mode. No thanks, I'm going to have a job, a spouse, and kids, and still manage to practice my religion well, because I'm not a wimp." This despite their religion featuring all the usual the-world-distracts-you-from-salvation warnings. [1] See #6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhis...
  - pluma 11y ago
    > Blind spirituality: Superstitions and rituals should not be observed or followed, including pilgrimages, fasting and ritual purification; circumcision; idols & grave worship; compulsory wearing of the veil for women; etc. This is probably one of the things that surprised me the most. Other religions put these things first, Sikhism just bans them outright. You'd think a religion that doesn't reinforce its importance with obtrusive rituals wouldn't survive but here it is alive and kicking ass.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - 11y ago

jeffbr13 11y ago

> The great tragedy is that since 9/11 Sikhs have often been mistaken for afgans/arabs wearing turbans & discriminated against. The greater tragedy is discrimination against Arabs based on racism and faulty heuristics for what a 'terrorist' looks like.

pluma 11y ago
One could argue that the heuristics are for what a Muslim looks like. In that sense the tragedy is that that Sikhs don't really have anything to do with Islam at all. That most Americans think of a beard and turban as a fool-proof indicator of the person being a Muslim of course shows a lack of consideration. How relevant moderates are to extremism is a separate question (and one that is largely orthogonal to the religion itself) but it's fair to say that no matter how little a moderate has to do with extremists, someone who isn't even a member of their religion in the first place is about as undeserving of hostility as it gets. I would argue the greater tragedies are that ethnicity frequently gets conflated with religion (which really serves no-one, unless your religion is incestuous) and that most people are too ignorant of other cultures than their own to tell them apart. Heck, there are still Americans who have a hard time accepting that Obama isn't Muslim just because he's not white (as if non-white Christianity hadn't ever been a thing in the US).

meIias 11y ago

Yeah how tragic, being mistaken for an Arab. I really hope that the denizens of HN can rise above the need to make foolhardy generalizations (good or bad) about large swathes of people. Maybe save that for your reddit account.

pluma 11y ago

I'm generally pretty biased against all religion by default but Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. It's pretty egalitarian, its followers are encouraged to defend the weak (and not just weak Sikhs either) and committing to its values and laws is an option that should only be taken after careful consideration rather than the default. The only negative thing I can think of is the insurgency in India of the 1970s and the assassination of Indira Gandhi, although I don't think it's fair to classify those events purely as religiously motivated violence (or even terrorism).

ashark 11y ago
I respect that they have a tradition that considers religious practice most valid when it occurs in the world[1]. Many other religions have strong ascetic and/or monastic traditions, and they tend to consider those practitioners to be, in some sense or other, the holiest. Retreat from the world tends to be the advised path for the purest, or at least most successful, pursuit of religious study and practice. Not the Sikhs. They're like, "Pft, that sounds like religion on easy mode. No thanks, I'm going to have a job, a spouse, and kids, and still manage to practice my religion well, because I'm not a wimp." This despite their religion featuring all the usual the-world-distracts-you-from-salvation warnings. [1] See #6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhis...
- pluma 11y ago
  > Blind spirituality: Superstitions and rituals should not be observed or followed, including pilgrimages, fasting and ritual purification; circumcision; idols & grave worship; compulsory wearing of the veil for women; etc. This is probably one of the things that surprised me the most. Other religions put these things first, Sikhism just bans them outright. You'd think a religion that doesn't reinforce its importance with obtrusive rituals wouldn't survive but here it is alive and kicking ass.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 11y ago