Humanity is a fairly self-destructive species, I am continually amazed that we still exist.

You know, I had naively hoped that this wouldn’t happen across the pond. Contrary to America, where Sikhs are more scattered and less understood, I thought that in England, people were more knowledgeable about Sikhism, that they could tell the difference between al-Qaeda and an innocent group of people who had nothing to do with transportation treachery. Perhaps some, if not most of the English can…but much to my alarm, there are quite obviously a dangerous few who can’t. To them, a turban is a turban is a turban. Bend it like Beckham and bomb it like an ignorant jerk.

You know it's interesting to note that my favorite Yoda phrase fits here:
"Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering".

England is no execption when it comes to racial/ethnic problems. Don't forget that neo-nazi skinheads originated there; or that 'paki' as a racial slur started there also.

This is quite sad. I thought that this sort of ignorance was virtually nonexistent in today's UK... looks like I was wrong.

there are quite obviously a dangerous few who can’t

A few rotten eggs can really screw things up.

England is no execption when it comes to racial/ethnic problems. Don't forget that neo-nazi skinheads originated there; or that 'paki' as a racial slur started there also.

Yes, but the least we could ask for, given how horrendously they have treated their desis in the past (well, that, and that whole colonialism thing), is some accuracy in the insanity of present day hooligans.

There's an old saying about the American South--it's not the heat, it's the humidity; it's not the hate, it's the stupidity.

Comfortably perched thousands of miles away,
Saurav

Hi, first post here.

I agree that the Sikh spokespeople are responding in entirely the wrong way. They're trying to argue that they are "good" migrants, and are not to be confused with Muslims. This only leaves them open to more attacks, as racists sure can't tell a Sikh from a Muslim, and their statements don't sufficiently condemn racism against Muslims. The tone is entirely off.

halwa puri

I did not read that tone into the statement by the Sikh organisation. They are simply affirming their British identity and the contribution they have made to Britain. Sikhs want to affirm their identity, they are not Muslims and correcting that erroneous impression is a natural one. Nothing wrong with that.

The responses to this are hysterical especially from Saurav. Britain is not a racist society, although there might be racists amongst them. Highlighting isolated incidents and ascribing them such importance distorts the fact that Britain has gone out of its way to be vigilant against hate crimes in the aftermath and community relations are good.

I did not read that tone into the statement by the Sikh organisation. They are simply affirming their British identity and the contribution they have made to Britain. Sikhs want to affirm their identity, they are not Muslims and correcting that erroneous impression is a natural one. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong in particular, except for the complete lack of solidarity with Muslims. My comments are not a condemnation, but I wonder why their statement is so cold. They should be saying hands off gurudwaras and hands off mosques. No community should be targetted.

halwa puri -

don't base the opinion of all Sikh groups on two sentences you read on a blog. Every press release I wrote or sent out after 9/11 expressed solidarity with the Muslim religion. Whenever we said don't target Sikhs, we also made it a point to say the same for Muslims. Unfortunately, not a single press release from the Muslim front echoed that sentiment in our favor. Most Sikh groups continue to write the same way as before in regards to backlash and have never condemned the Muslim religion.

Anna - thanks for this post.

The responses to this are hysterical especially from Saurav. Britain is not a racist society, although there might be racists amongst them.

I was being somewhat flip and careless with my words, but I wasn't being hysterical (I could see how you might read my comment as such though). I was referring more to the history of Britain's race relations with desis than anything else (which I actually know very little about, anyway, other than that it's been bad).

community relations are good.

That said, these are the things we hear about on this side of the pond. I would imagine they didn't come from stellar "community relations." But, again, I'm not there, and I don't know anything about anything about this stuff--just some isolated anecdotes here and there. And I also the the sense that things are changing there (for the better) more rapidly than they are in the U.S.

halwa puri

They should be saying hands off gurudwaras and hands off mosques

They did say that in their statement. The article just did not quote it.

You really should not go down the pernicious route of somehow making Sikhs complicit in isolated acts of violence by your false assumptions and imputations. Sikhs in England dont need to be told by you about what needs to be said and done. They do it. In fact, I find your presumptions about tone made in the light of ignorance to be extremely arrogant as well as false.

I am a practising Sikh and I live in London. I can attest that the tenor of the responses to this post are hysterical and mindless. British society is much more aware of Sikhism than American society is. British society has been marked by the moderation of its responses to the attacks. Sadly for those on the extreme right no rivers of blood have taken place in the aftermath. It takes a handful of extreme-right wing ignoramuses to try and light a fire. It takes just as many ignorant people to blow this up into a large scale racist backlash which does not exist, especially by people who do not seem to know about the nature of British society and make false assumptions.

Sikhs are on guard, as are Hindus and Muslims. But we wont be coralled into a narrative that paints Britain in a light that is unrepresentative, and I will be damned if people like Halwa Puri insinuate that the Sikh response has been 'cold' or incorrect.

As I understand the Sikhs dont get along with Pakis/Bangladeshis in UK.

don't base the opinion of all Sikh groups on two sentences you read on a blog. Every press release I wrote or sent out after 9/11 expressed solidarity with the Muslim religion. Whenever we said don't target Sikhs, we also made it a point to say the same for Muslims.

I don't think I'd do that, and I'm glad that your messages did express that sentiment. I don't hear enough of it, frankly. And it doesn't matter if Muslim organisations don't do it in return, it's important for us to do it for them regardless. Or our committees and organisations should, anyway, since I when I say "us" I can't claim to identify with Sikh organisations, precisely for this kind of reason.

Sonia

Unfortunately, not a single press release from the Muslim front echoed that sentiment in our favor. Most Sikh groups continue to write the same way as before in regards to backlash and have never condemned the Muslim religion

Sadly, I have to concur with this observation. Although much work is being done in inter-faith co-operation so that Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Hindus present a united front and show solidarity across the board in facing down extremism and any potential backlash.

They did say that in their statement. The article just did not quote it.

You really should not go down the pernicious route of somehow making Sikhs complicit in isolated acts of violence by your false assumptions and imputations. Sikhs in England dont need to be told by you about what needs to be said and done. They do it. In fact, I find your presumptions about tone made in the light of ignorance to be extremely arrogant as well as false.

I've hardly made them complicit, I've just criticised their tone. Anyway if they have made those statements, then good. I'm glad Sikh organisations in England are sophisticated enough to do this. In my experience in Australia, they constantly fail to express solidarity with other migrants.

Every press release I wrote or sent out after 9/11 expressed solidarity with the Muslim religion. Whenever we said don't target Sikhs, we also made it a point to say the same for Muslims. Unfortunately, not a single press release from the Muslim front echoed that sentiment in our favor.

Sonia, we should start a club for people who sent out press releases to deal with 2001 attacks backlash :)

Anyway, what work were you doing Sonia? It's interesting to hear you say that about Sikh org press release vs. Muslim org press releases and I'm wondering if you can give some more details or flesh it out.

The messaging that I always struggled with was how to be accurate about who was getting targeted and who was not by the government (again--just to be clear, I'm talking about government actions, not private sector backlash.) As I'm sure you know, "southasiansarabsandmuslim" became something of a media, art, and funding catchphrase, despite that the real profiling by the govt was of Muslims and Muslim-looking (to use a term that's pretty accurate and can't take credit for) people (esp. those of color). And, much, much more importantly, that profiling was part of a much larger immigration crackdown that had been going on for several years prior to 2001.

But that's neither here nor there. It would be interesting to hear more about your experiences.

Is the kind of response I just got normal around here? I noticed some serious defensiveness in Jagpal's posts, and I realised I just had to come out as a Sikh, despite not particularly wanting to, so I could somehow earn a right to say what I said above?

My observations, not a flame.

Halwa, this is actually a nice thread. If you want to read something heated try this thread.

Halwa, this is actually a nice thread. If you want to read something heated try this thread.

Yeah, I see. Well, that thread has sure scared me.

Back to this topic: Is the politics of communal identity so ingrained in migrant Desi communities that a comment about a Sikh organisation's statement is replied to with accusations that Muslims are really the ones who don't express solidarity? How is that the point?

Is the kind of response I just got normal around here?

I don't know, why don't you stick around and find out? ;)

No, seriously...I think we're all a bit rattled by what happened in London. It's not surprising that a lot of the comments are passionate, emotional, powerful. Another thing to keep in mind is that like you, some of the people who are leaving those comments are new to the site.

I do hope you'll stay, no matter what "response" you get...you add a fresh viewpoint to the dialogue and that's a good thing. :)

I noticed some serious defensiveness in Jagpal's posts, and I realised I just had to come out as a Sikh, despite not particularly wanting to, so I could somehow earn a right to say what I said above?

Ouch, well I'd like to think that no one has to "earn" the right to say anything here. Every voice is welcome, as long as it's not abusive.

Thanks Anna. I might just stick around and see. Cheers.

halwa puri

No defensiveness. A reaction to your statement, which was ill informed and wrong. Not only have Sikh organisations gone out of their way in defending Muslims and protesting demonisation of Muslims in Britain, you appear to be defensive about something yourself when you seek to insinuate this into a narrative of 'communalism' inside 'Desi communities'.

Check yourself. You comment on something abstract like 'the tone of a statement' not having read the statement and you bring a set of assumptions about 'communal identity' into the equation. I sincerely believe you need to read and think more carefully.

Anyway, where's Sepia's original Sikh dude, Punjabi Boy ? Not been seen since 7/7. Hope he's okay.

Have you got the full statement Jagpal? I'd really like to see it. Because if it says everything you claim it does, then Sikh organisations in England must be remarkable.

In my whole life, I have never heard a Sikh organisation stand up for Muslims. And that is because the organisations I know of are constantly trying to put "our" community forward as hard-working, well-behaved immigrants who only want to get along. Unlike those naughty Muslims, who we must never be confused with.

While I can accept that the comments quoted above form a small part of a larger statement, when I read them, I felt they fit straight into a politics of competing communities.

But like I said, if the statement is really spot on, then that's great.

halwa puri

You really are full of self loathing and contempt arent you? It takes a special kind of loathing to turn an innocuous statement by a Sikh body into a conspiracy of communalism. You only see what you want to see, I guess, and not only is your hyper-sensitivity unwarranted and in bad taste, its actually a projection of your own struggles onto a volatile situation. In fact at a time when Sikhs have been meticulous in forming alliances with all religions, whilst asserting their reality as an integral part of British society, all you can do is whine and whinge and project your own neurosis on the situation. Competing communities? You dont have a clue. Competing for what? And why single out Sikhs whilst they are under threat for affirming themselves at this present moment?

I am involved in inter-faith dialogue myself and I find your attitude really depressing and pathetic.

"In my whole life, I have never heard a Sikh organisation stand up for Muslims."

That is pure bull! In the USA post 9/11 in numerous interview on tv and in newspapers, Sikhs have expressly condemned the "backlash" against themselves, Muslims, and Hindus and others. SIkhs also did this in several meetings with President Bush and other politicians. Additionally, organizations like Sikh Coalition and others have put on presentations for the FBI, police, rotary clubs, churches, civic and business organizations, etc. where they have condemned hate crime against Muslims and also have stressed writings of both Muslim and Hindu saints are included in the SIkh Granth.

As I understand the Sikhs dont get along with Pakis/Bangladeshis in UK.

Do the Pakis/Bangladeshis in UK get along with the Hindus or any other groups there? I heard that the Pakistani and Bangladeshis don't get along amongst themselves and have some friction with the Afghani and Arab Muslims there.

If you use the logic that the Sikh attackers use, that turban=Al Qaeda, by that token we should all attack every white person bcuz white=KKK/Neo-Nazi..it's just ridiculous and I feel bad for the Sikh communities everywhere. They don't make it a point to show how different they are as many Muslims do, they try to work hard and stay out of trouble (most of them). I have quite a few muslim friends and even though they aren't troublemakers, they do have an 'us vs them' outlook on life and I believe this is one reason why racists go after all brown ppl thinking they are turban wearing terrorists.

one of my muslim friends has started an organization since 9/11 trying to have routine 'town-hall' style meetings for the general public to come to mosques and learn about Islam and the many cultures within it. i think a lot more of this type of pro-active damage control would be a great help to alleviating a lot of misguided Sikh backlash.

peace, y'all.

Is the politics of communal identity so ingrained in migrant Desi communities

this earlier question by halwa appears to answer itself, no?

a quick google search for statements by the british sikh community produces this. Allow me to quote in full so everyone can find fodder for their arguments and counter-arguments directly in the text:

London Bomb Explosions: Sikhs call for official action By Sikh Commission on Racism & Cohesion Jul 7, 2005, 12:14

London Bomb Explosions: Sikh call for official action to prevent repeat of 9/11 racist frenzy

In an immediate reaction to the London bomb explosions, the Sikh Commission on Racism & Cohesion1 has expressed concerns about a repeat of post 9/11 racist frenzy against Sikhs and Muslims in Britain. Members of the Sikh Commission and other Sikh groups have condemned the explosions as a public outrage.

According to the Sikh Commission: “Following 9/11, visible communities like the Sikhs and Muslims became immediate targets of public racism from racist elements in British society. Anyone that was considered to be Muslim or Muslim-like in appearance, was targeted with vicious verbal racism, taunts and also physical attacks.“2 According to Jagdeesh Singh3, a member of the Sikh Commission, “Up and down Britain, Sikhs recognisable by turbans and beards, suffered daily racism on the streets, at work, in public venues and, also, in schools.” 4

The Sikh Commission is concerned that, in the absence of preventative action by the government and public authorities, the current London explosions could trigger a repeat racist frenzy. Dal Singh of the Birmingham based Sikh Youth & Community Service (a member of the Sikh Commission), says the “The London explosions are a vicious outrage and need to be firmly and totally condemned. At the same time, we need to see an official effort to protect exposed communities like the Sikhs from a repeat of the racist onslaught experienced immediately after 9/11.”

The Commission is concerned that, to date, no recognition nor action has been given to the clear pattern of racist hostility and attacks on the Sikh community5. “The Prime Minister and Home Secretaries have publicly condemned the post 9/11 racist attacks on the Jewish and Muslim community in Britain. However, in regards to the Sikh community, there has been a conspicuous silence and inaction. This begs the question, why?”. The Sikh Commission believes there has been no official push to prevent or address the attacks on the Sikh community.

The Sikh Commission is urging British Police Forces and the British Home Office to take account of the number and spread of attacks on communities like the Sikhs and Muslims. “Tragically and most unequally, many communities in Britain are not featured in the official ethnic monitoring prcoedures operated by the police and Home Office. These are wholly unrepresentative and restrictive, excluding Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Somalians, Afghans, English, Scottish, Welsh, Arabs, Tamils, Gujaratis, Kurds, Polish, Greek, Kashmiri, Italian and many other substantive communities.”

According to Dal Singh (Sikh Youth & Community Service): “There is no public record, monitoring nor assessment of the attacks that take place on these communities who are excluded from the official systems. This amounts to institutional discrimination against a huge mass of the multi-ethnic British population”.

The Sikh Commission is urging public authorities, police forces and community organisations to remain vigilant against a repeat of the post 9-11 public racism. On Tuesday 12th July 2005, British Sikh organisations are gathering at the House of Commons for the official launch of a newly established All Party Parliamentary Sikh Group5. The Sikh Commission on Racism & Cohesion will be impressing upon the large gathering of MPs and Sikh representatives, the need for official attention and action on the cycle of racism on Sikhs.

i left out the footnotes, you can find them at the site. also, i am neither sikh nor live in britain so i know nothing about this organization, and i welcome any context anyone wishes to provide.

having said that, i think it's quite clear that sikh organizations are and have been condemning attacks on muslims. after all, anti-muslim hatred is a key force behind backlash attacks on sikhs. now we can argue about how the condemnation is phrased, its tone, etc., but at a certain point (i.e., almost immediately) that kind of debate starts doing more harm than good. "divide and rule" is an axiom of power. do we really want to be divided?

now, i think there has been ample evidence in the past few years that sikh males run a specific heightened risk of reprisals, for the simple reason -- as painful as it is to state this obvious connection -- that they wear turbans and hhave beards. ignorance satisfies itself with simple certainties. i think we need to be particularly solidary of our sikh brothers in respect of this, and i don't begrudge them drawing special attention to their community. education, after all, is the only reliable solution.

i would at the same time comment on jagpal's observation at the top of the thread that

Britain is not a racist society, although there might be racists amongst them.

if a society "is not" racist, but at the same time, racism is an active force within the fabric of that society, then what does that make it?

i don't think categorical statements that a whole society is or is not racist make much sense. racism is at work in pretty much any society where there exists a widely perceived distinction of groups according to race or ethnicity.

the question is, what are we doing to counteract racism and indeed, to help rechannel its negative energies into positive outcomes?

finally, halwa and jagpal, i do hope you guys will stick around. this is a pretty cool place.

peace

British Hindus do not want terrorism to divide communities 7 July 2005 - The Hindu Forum of Britain today condemned the explosions in London as a barbaric attack on human dignity, democratic freedom and modern civilisation and called for extra vigilance following the tragic events.

Ramesh Kallidai, Secretary General of the Hindu Forum of Britain said: “While the Police investigate the causes of these terrible incidents, we must all remain alert and vigilant.”

Also check out this report by the Hindu Forum of Britain to the Home Office -
http://tinyurl.com/cuk77

Unidentified persons in Copenhagen assaulted a bus driver of Sikh origin with baseball bats after it was made known that the London bomb attacks had been perpetrated by an organization linked with Al Qaeda.

The assailants shouted "London" as they beat up the driver. Police officers reported that the driver was still under shock and that they were on the trail of the attackers. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has condemned the atatck.

Just to be clear, as I understand both the Sikhs and the Pakis/Banglas dont get along with each other.
I was not trying to insinuate that its only the Sikhs who dont want to get along.
Brits here can educate us on the tensions between various South Asian groups in UK.

Saurav - I started Bay Area Sikhs in CA in 2000 and that turned into a anti-backlash project after 9/11.

Halwa - How about educating yourself just a little bit before remarking so strongly on this subject. Try Sikh Coalition or SALDEF or a multitude of other organizations for actual statements that have been put out by Sikh organizations in regards to backlash.

"Thanks to a coincidence of complexion, we are complicit and we will pay."

Well stated and depressingly true. I am surprised by the arguments on here. Bickering among ourselves will accomplish nothing. We need to pressure our leaders to help us educate the public about hate crimes as we strive to demystify Islam, Sikhism and everything else. For all those who wonder what they can do-- have you shared yourself with your friends and neighbors? Have you invited non-Indians in your life and broadened their experiences? It's harder to hate Muslims and Sikhs when you like someone who is.

Lovin wrote:

"I have quite a few muslim friends and even though they aren't troublemakers, they do have an 'us vs them' outlook on life and I believe this is one reason

"We are foreign and we wear turbans, just like that bastard Osama. Thanks to a coincidence of complexion, we are complicit and we will pay."

Halwa Puri says In my whole life, I have never heard a Sikh organisation stand up for Muslims. And that is because the organisations I know of are constantly trying to put "our" community forward as hard-working, well-behaved immigrants who only want to get along. Unlike those naughty Muslims, who we must never be confused with.

While I can accept that the comments quoted above form a small part of a larger statement, when I read them, I felt they fit straight into a politics of competing communities.

Whew!

I'm neither Sikh nor Muslim and have never been to the UK (first trip ever, coincidentally next week) -- so have no agenda thereof.

However, I found halwa puri's statement to be

a) offensive because of the insinuation/ tone ("naughtly Muslims" -- where the hell did that come from?), and

b) inaccurate. I was pulled off a plane post- 9/11 in Wash DC by the FBI and assorted sundries. Worked with a couple of Sikh groups after that incident and they continually emphasized that their work/ message included not just Sikhs but Muslims and all others of color.

In my whole life, I have never heard a Sikh organisation stand up for Muslims.

Check this for a Sikh organization condemning attacks against Muslims; there are more there if you want to educate yourself (along with condemnation by Sikhs of Muslims being "registered" by DOJ).

Check this for an Arab-American orgainzation recognizing a Sikh one.

Through my work with SALDEF--Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund--I saw a lot more collaboration with Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs, other South Asians than a cursory look may demonstrate. Mainstream Muslim organizations consistently spoke our against Sikhs being attacked and vice versa.

Thanks, Preet, for your recommendations, I'll have a look. And Siddharta, thanks for posting the statement. It is a damn sight better than I expected.

To those who are saying I haven't educated myself (and Jagpal: is there such a category as the self-loathing Sikh? How trite), I won't pretend I trawl the internet for statements from Sikhs in the US and the UK. I live in Australia, where I have never heard Sikh organisations stand up for Muslims. In my life. Even after Sep 11. In fact I produced some anti-racist material after Sep 11 and my local Sikh Association didn't put its name on it. It didn't even reply to me.

What I hear in this context is that:
1. We work hard,
2. We respect everyone,
3. We are a "wealthy" community with many professionals,
4. We do not come here illegally and have to live in detention centres in the desert, unlike those naughty Muslims,
5. If those Muslims hadn't messed up their own countries anyway (eg Afghanistan), they wouldn't need to come here illegally and get locked up in the desert, so we don't have sympathy for them because they are naughty migrants, unlike us good migrants.

halwa, thanks for the update. it sounds like you are not "self-hating," merely frustrated. good for you for venting, and for listening to people's counterpoints however expressed.

it certainly appears that this thread has produced plenty of examples that should make you feel better. though perhaps not in australia.

as for the undertone you are worried about, well, no minority community however perceived by itself and other, is ever wholly immune from the risk of MMS. Model Minority Syndrome. it's in all of us to some degree, as is its opposite. that's a struggle (a jihad?) we wage within ourselves. it's the ransom of coloniality, a price we keep on paying long after political independence.

hopefully we can recognize this struggle and find ways to turn the energy into something positive.

peace

it's not the hate, it's the stupidity.

Yes, all white people are filthy racists, ignorant of the world and all that, and any action by one is an action by all, always deliberate, always planned, and always coordinated by the filthy saip (as they say in Malayalam.)

But being that as it may, Sikh terrorism is not exactly an unknown phenomenon, is it? So even though this gurudwara attack was inexcusable and unwarranted, perhaps there's a karmic debt to be paid for the murder of Indira Gandhi and the rest of that "Free Khalistan" nonsense.

Cheers, Siddharta.

Sadly, in the Australian context, I suspect many migrants have perceived a very pressing need to look like model minorities, if only to protect themselves. We recently had a Filipina immigrant, a citizen of Australia, wrongly deported to Manila by Immigration authorities. She still hasn't been brought back because the government has still come to an agreement with her about how to do so and what to pay her. She was deported with serious injuries from a car accident, is to some degree suffering from a mental illness, and hasn't seen her children in Australia for that whole time.

With this kind of thing going on, I can imagine lots of brown immigrants secretly working on their Aussie accents so they aren't confused with "illegals".

I meant the government has still *not* come to an agreement with the deported woman.

On the "karmic debt" issue: I don't think so. That's like encouraging racists to "repay" Muslims for Osama's actions. No thanks.

as for the undertone you are worried about, well, no minority community however perceived by itself and other, is ever wholly immune from the risk of MMS. Model Minority Syndrome. it's in all of us to some degree, as is its opposite. that's a struggle (a jihad?) we wage within ourselves. it's the ransom of coloniality, a price we keep on paying long after political independence.

Yes, but "to some degree" is the key phrase here--minority communities are not uniform (to the point where I would hesitate to call them communities at all at times) in their position in society. Particularly, in the US, for communities this is true for desis and others who clearly fall somewhere between or outside the black/white dichotomy. All this is to say that it's not just a struggle/process within ourselves, but within our communities as well--one that gets too often overshadowed by real or perceived threats from outside that made demands for unity without nuance.

On a personal level, it has to do with how comfortable it is for you to align yourself with the powerful (for lack of a better word) vs. how comfortable it is for you to align yourself with the less powerful. This is perhaps obvious, but I think the more markers you have for or against you (class, language ability, citizenship status, income, professional status, sexuality, mental health, personality), the more likely you are to excercise your free will to go with one side or the other (to really oversimplify it).

Which would perhaps explain why Sikhs around the world react in different ways to threats against them as Sikhs.

i wonder, was 9/11 a karmic debt finally paid?

no one is innocent, every religion has total shit-for-brains losers who molest and twist holy words for evil purposes.

if the sikhs "owed" anything two decades ago, i'd contend that the scores of them who were slaughtered, mutilated and burned alive apres-Indira's assasination paid it a million times over.

an eye for an eye and the whole world going retarded...

The Khalistan terrorists were financially supported by a number of "model immigrants" to Silicon Valley, just as the IRA terrorists have been supported by a number of "model citizens" in the US, many of them holders of elected office.

No community is completely without stain where terrorism is concerned, so nobody should feel too put-upon by any given irrational reaction.

After 9/11, the liberals in the US predicted a big anti-Muslim backlash which never materialized, although one poor Sikh shopkeeper in Texas was attacked, oddly enough.

perhaps there's a karmic debt to be paid for the murder of Indira Gandhi and the rest of that "Free Khalistan" nonsense.

Wow... I don't even know where to start with you.

You could start by acknowledging that it's wrong and racist to blame all white people for the actions of a few.

I just can't see where on this board all white people have been blamed for racist attacks?

We don't actually know that the gurudwara attack was fomented by white people, do we? For all we know it could have been Hindus, but this board is full of remarks about British and American skinheads, etc., which simply assume the racial identity of the evil-doers.

lol.....this Bennet dude is funny....

If that stupid organisation had not claimed the responsibilty for the Londoan bombings,would we stil not have known that the attack was by jehadi terrorists?

Right Mr Dickhead Bennet...of course...why would skinheads attack that gurdwara or any mosque?You are abloutely right....Hindus in Britain have so much more reason to be attacking gurdwaras at this time....and of course,racist backlash against Sikhs is so so unknown in US and England.....that guy in Mesa Phoenix who killed the Sikh gas station owner was not a misplaced white extremist...he was a fanatic Hindu in disguise who wanted to avenge the 9/11 bombings!!

Hope you see things in perspective....no one here argued that whites are racists...if anything I totally know that had a 9/11 occured in India,the anti-muslim backlash would have been so much more worse(Gujrat 2002 anyne??) than was in the western countries
But,
Please do not shut your eyes to the simple fact there is a semi-lunatic fringe amongst the whites which thinks that destroying places like gurdwaras and mosques is a good way for avenging any bombings by jehadi terrorists.

And if you are really serious about that stupid comment about the attack being a retributin for Khalistani terrorism,wait til its time for a retribution for western colonialism,the Spanish inquisition,the near-extermination of Native Americans(and so on) coz when the time for THAT rettibution comes along,we shouldnt have a single white christian standing on the face of this earth....right?

I really don't get why people don't understand that there always will be an idiotic minority within a country that will use moments such as these to put forth their voice.

That is the price you pay in a free society. You don't condemn people to death for their views, even though they may be horribly skewed and messed up.

Great Britain, United States, Canada, and a few others are probably the most accepting of other cultures in the past 30-40 years. Each evolved with its own way of dealing with things and for its seperate need.

Lets stop painting GB, USA, or whatever with the racist society banner; racists exist but exceptions to the facts don't constitute a valid arguement that overall people are racist.

It is unfortunate that innocent law abiding citizens and immigrants are being intimidated by a minority. Let the irrational anger calm down buy guiding people into a rational mindset, not by lashing back at them.

All one can ask in free societies is the laws and authorties that are in place serve them justice. If justice is served, then the society itself is validated for what it stands for. Now, when justice is not served is when you have a true cause to rally and fight a failing institution.

No one can really stop a racist if he intends to be a hater, all you can do is calmly and vigilantly make your case that ensures ALL (white black brown whatever) parties undestand that when such person acts out a crime, they are punished for breaking the law. Not punished for having a misguided thought. Racism hurts all and by playing identity politics with each other, it only serves to harm us in the future. This isn't just for browns, but for all: Whites, Blacks, Latinos, etc. There is common ground for fighting such decay, and it rests in the enforcement of laws that do not see color, only man does. I admit, there are boundaries that cross into misguided thought to conspiracy to kill, mame, and hurt. In MOST cases, it eventually becomes clear and such people pay for their deeds.

Obviously, all said IMHO.

Looking back at my previous post,I can see that my last paragraph could have been phrased more delicately.....I was trying to make RB see the absurdity of his near-rationalization of the attack on the gurdwara by extrapolating the same logic onto himself/his community.

I agree it was immature on my part.....for every RB on this board,there are possibly million other equally or more stupid bozos out there and I wouldnt credit them with having the IQ to be able to grasp the simple logic that I was trying to expound.Plus in such sensitive times as these,that minority is very likely to only mis-construe the import of what I said.

Take care ya'all....

We don't actually know that the gurudwara attack was fomented by white people, do we? For all we know it could have been Hindus,

Lets stop painting GB, USA, or whatever with the racist society banner; racists exist but exceptions to the facts don't constitute a valid arguement that overall people are racist.

You're raising all kinds of issues here in really imprecise language. The salient point in the overall scheme of things is not whether "overall people are racist." Obviously the United States or the UK or the Canada of today are not the same as in 1860 or in 1907 or in 1945. The point is not solely the number of people willing to torch or deface a Gurudwara or a synagogue or lynch a Black person (although that obviously matters), but the prevalence and power of racist ideas in the culture (which may or may not be a commentary on the people who hold them).

While I'm happy that the United States no longer sanctions slavery or apartheid within it's borders, it's not all that comforting that structural racism still exists to the point where a substantial number of people are willing to sponsor government policies like the death penalty even though there's clear evidence that race is a factor.

Mr. NoFixed Address:

The guy who killed the Sikh gas station owner in Mesa Arizona wasn't white, he was hispanic. He was still a racist, just not a white one.

While I'm happy that the United States no longer sanctions slavery or apartheid within it's borders, it's not all that comforting that structural racism still exists to the point where a substantial number of people are willing to sponsor government policies like the death penalty even though there's clear evidence that race is a factor.

Personally, I don't know too much about such statistics or details. But, again, I believe this is splitting hairs on the more general theme: lets not cave into stereotyping British or American people. Shit exists and with time and effort of good people, it will slowly fade too.

Saurav, I understand where you are coming from. Deficiencies in bureaucratic institutions and the inertia to overcome them is probably where you will find the biggest race-fights so to speak. It isn't against the idea of rascism, or that it is condoned knowlingly by the population that is bent on racist motives, the mechanisms are tuned in a way that makes it passive/hidden.

lets not cave into stereotyping British or American people.

Sure. But let's not pretend, either, that to the extent that they influence immigration, criminal justice, and other policies, they don't manifest some racism (and other things). Not that racism is the problem I would identify as the most pressing, from a policy persepctive--but I wouldn't deny that it exists either.

fuck god. he has no problem fucking us over. though i had sex today already, so i guess i don't want to fuck him.

Having lived in the USA and several other countries (Libya, India, Malaysia, Singapore) and worked in Japan and Europe, its fairly obvious to me that the US is the least racist country on Earth. India is certainly much more racist than the US, although you don't see Indian racism quite as strongly expressed in Kerala as you do in the North.

I was first directed to this site by an article called "White Man's Burden" that was as racist and provincial as anything I've seen on the web except for rank skinhead sites.

Hint: Who ruled India before the British Raj?

Clue: The USA is a former British colony but we don't have a chip on our shoulder about it.

Naamaskar and have a nice day.

saurav

All this is to say that it's not just a struggle/process within ourselves, but within our communities as well--one that gets too often overshadowed by real or perceived threats from outside that made demands for unity without nuance.

you know i agree with you, brother. the thing is, the struggle within is the most difficult one of all. from a philosophical point of view i think it is the most fundamental. when you cease the struggle within, it means one of two things: either (a) you've reached a higher level of consciousness, like one of those yogis up in the himalayas, or (b) you've opened yourself up wide to getting pimped by the system. and the system never refuses an invitation.

peace

Richard is probably unaware of "Menifest Destiny".

"Hint: Who ruled India before the British Raj?

Clue: The USA is a former British colony but we don't have a chip on our shoulder about it."

The American people love the British because a huge majority of them have British ancestry. They hate the "French" too.. just like the Brits (I never really understood that one ... talk about a chip on the shoulder)

Well I just got to work and I dont want to ruin my day by recounting the horrors of British Raj to this person.

Have a good day all !!!

" The British never required the "native" to crawl on the some streets, as Gen. Dyer required in Amritsar."

I meant that the British didnt require such a thing in the US.

This is a sick attempt to compare the British rule in India and British commercial dispute of America. The British never required the "native" to crawl on the some streets, as Gen. Dyer required in Amritsar.

Indian PM Manmohan Singh has now decided to join the Dream Team of House Negroes by praising the 'Raj' and how it helped India.
By doing this, he has become the first Indian PM to talk openly about how good the Raj was (In UK itself too !)

He did have a tiny critical sentence about the benefits of the Raj.

Here is the text http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/nic/0046/pmspeech.htm

*He did have a tiny critical sentence about the Raj.

"Indian PM Manmohan Singh has now decided to join the Dream Team of House Negroes by praising the 'Raj' and how it helped India. By doing this, he has become the first Indian PM to talk openly about how good the Raj was (In UK itself too !)"

A sitting PM praising the 'Raj' was a slap on the face of the generations of revolutionaries who gave their lives to rid India of the 'Raj'.
This is what happens when an academic is "MADE" PM for the reasons of legality. This puppet PM has no sense that he is actually "representing" people. What a pathetic 'House Indian'.

The American people love the British because a huge majority of them have British ancestry. They hate the "French" too.. just like the Brits (I never really understood that one ... talk about a chip on the shoulder)

1) the majority of americans are not british (i think that table underestimates the frequency because americans of mixed european ancestry are likely to find german or french more 'exotic' than english so they put that down for the census, but it is likely that less than 50% of the genes floating in the american population are derived from outside of the present great britain). it took me 2 seconds to look that up on google btw. think about it, it isn't that hard.

2) the 'french hatred' is an on and off again affair. america has had a positive attitude toward the french in many ways because 'we remember lafayette.'

3) i can see how people like richard bennett would find this to be a racist and offensive site in many ways. i find many of the comments to be racist, uninformed and ethnically myopic. this, in my opinion, is a big problem with asians, east, south and whatever, phrases that would seem racist and uncouth out of the mouth of a white person are accepted from non-whites, and so they tend not to hold themselves up to the same intellectual standards. on my own blog i've had to rebut idiotic indian and chinese who present their own indians-invented-everything or chinese-invented-everything model of history they were taught, when the same assertions out of a european's mouth would sound chauvanistic and narrow minded.

american browns are healthy, wealthy and accepted. but if you read some of the comments you would think we are 'negroes' in south carolina in 1930.

every weblog has idiot posters who troll the comment boards, you can't control it.

p.s. to be facile, i wonder if a dalito-centric view of indian history would be so anti-british?

"Every Indian should get down on his or her knees and thank the divinity of his or her choice for the British Raj, without which India would be at the level of Afghanistan today. "House Indian" indeed."

Very high intellectual standard and very informed comment. If this person is teaching in a college I would go to "learn". You got my vote for Nobel prize man!!
BTW, quite frankly I didnt quite understand the part of the comment about

"who has to join a gang, smoke crack, listen to hip-hop, "

I am sure that is also made is the high intellectual standard (not racist at all) way.

Richard Bennet

Hello. Do you believe in Karmic Payback for Americans? Perhaps 9/11 was justifiable payback for the My Lai massacre?

Ready to be a victim of that?

Nasty logic from a nasty black hearted soul with a chip on his shoulder the size of Mount St Helens.

Stop snivelling too.

american browns are healthy, wealthy and accepted. but if you read some of the comments you would think we are 'negroes' in south carolina in 1930.

Granted, there's a lot of hyperbole around (guilty), but the phrase you use is almost as bad. American browns are not a uniform group--socioeconomically--and a lot of them are poor, lgbt, racially or religiously discriminated against, undocumented, etc. To lump us all together and then say we're all as well off as the post 1965 professional crowd and their children (guilty) is a disservice to the literally thousands of American people that have had their lives disrupted or really damaged in the past few years--to say nothing of the tens of thousands that deal with random bs like undocumented status (and other things I proabbly don't know about) on an ongoing basis.

And of course, there's the entirely separate question of the billion desis who are not in the South Asian elite and have to bear the brunt of American (and other countries') policies--like arming both India and Pakistan with F16s. I don't know about you, but for whatever irrational reasons, I care about that (it would seem odd to me if an American desi truly didn't, but everyone is different).

As for trolls, well, I get down on my knees every day and thank Allah, Durga, and Christ that I am not Richard Bennett :)

"2) the 'french hatred' is an on and off again affair. america has had a positive attitude toward the french in many ways because 'we remember lafayette.'

What about the fact that EVERY DAY on MSNBC/FOX and CNN the tone of commentators is hatred for the Frech. Even literature as seen here here and here and I have quoted only mild titles.
Give me a break mr. Know it all

Actually, most Americans don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the French. Sure, we'd like for them to bathe more often and to use a little more soap and deodorant, but aside from drinking their wine and eating their cheese we don't really care about them.

They bascially a has-been nation that calls upon us to rescue them from their neighbors from time to time, which we generally do, and of course we wish they'd managed their colonies better due to that unpleasantness in SE Asia, but we don't expect much from them.

Incidentally, "undocumented status" isn't "random bs". It's a choice to enter the US illegally, presumably made because the illegal feels he's better of in that status than he would be at home.

Before we tightened up our immigration laws after 9/11, a majority of all the legal immigrants in the world came to the US, and it's still the case that a majority of illegals do as well.

And on that other topic let me add that I've always considered the Malayalees to be more civilized than the Froggies, although Kerala is definitely lacking in the cheese and wine departments.

but I wouldn't deny that it exists either.

Saurav, I don't think I said that. The fact that racism exists, even at times in old bureaucratic institutions that are the most resistant to change, doesn't consitute a whole society as 'racist'.

As I mentioned before, I believe we are splitting hairs on this one.

Lets see, when I lived in India, the amount of stupid shit I would hear about africans was absolutely ridiculous. Monkeys, apes, dumb people, etc were common phrases used in university envirnoments (I didn't go to a college there, but have been around the areas enough to catch that). The same went for whites, east asians, or anyone different for that matter.

Heck, even the North Indian, South Indian divide was pretty harsh (in a suttle embedded way). Does that constitute a racist society? My answer is no. It is an ignorant one that hasn't even dealt with similar issues faced by Americans. Anecdotal information from a friend who lived in Italy for amost 2 years suggests the western Europe is far more racist than the United States (trying to filter out muslims as the random brown guys)

The whole point of my statements was to make sure people made a difference between labeling a society as racist vs institutions that promote them within the society. I personally will not claim italy, germany, or whatever as racist. However, each have issues dealing with racism overtones that society must face.

This is a message for bennett. Perhaps Indira Gandhi shouldn't have had Sikh bodyguards in the first instance. How stupid can you get. She knew she would die in this situation, and provoked it. She was a hinduist, in any case, despite all that you might believe. I think you you talk of nothing you know. I mean all this wretched understanding you hold! Only speak to me until you're fluent in Panjabi or Hindi, as your one-off word is absolutely lousy. I've travelled vastly as well and I don't brag by listing the countries. I speak nine languages, fluently. Just a simple fact.

I was very intereted to read the above comments.

Whilst I am white, I grew up just outside Slough which has a very large asian population.

It's sad that 'some' people vent their anger on temples of any type.

Could someone clarify something for me...excuse my ignorance..

What is the difference between the Sikh and Hindu religion? I went to school with Sikh kids but always get confused between Hindu and Sikh.

Hello Sean,

Apologies for the delay in replying to your request for information.

Your question should hopefully be answered here.

For general information about Sikhism, this website should also be useful.

Hope this helps ;)

The last URL wasn't linked properly, let me try again: Here.

Thanks Jai, I'll check it out.

Another good website, Sean, is www.sikhs.org

I just read some earlier comments.
In response to the posts claiming a lack of Sikh organizations supporting or working with the Muslim community post 9/11, groups such as the Sikh Coalition, United Sikhs, and SALDEF work in conjunction with various Muslim groups to not only serve as a source of comfort and support for each other, but also to rally their resources and initiate programs to educate public and private entities.

why cannot any of this stop. sikh and muslims are the same to me. nothing is different, well the culture to a certain degree but why cant they get along. why a re they against a sikh and muslim love relationship. cant we choose who we want to be with? we cant help who we fall in love with. please reply.

How about Khalistani terrorism that rocked India and claimed thousands of lives in Punjab and rest of India just a few years ago, with support from the muslim neighbours?
Why do the sikhs want to disown the responsibility of that madness now and point an accusing finger at the muslims? Just to protect their institutions from backlash?

i think that sikhs and muslims are similar but not complete in the same way sikh don't have a keron we have a gurunth we don't pray to allah and we are not against other religions if we are true sikhs we are loyal to our culture we don't distroy because we don't think that everybody should be one race or religion it would be pointless i not trying to be one sided but i speak my opinion. i am not trying to say anyone is bad because some stupid mistake some other religion makes we don't want to be punished because we look like them

Listen all these points that say that Muslims and Sikhs are on the same boat need to stop. We Sikhs have absolutly nothing in common with muslims and nor we want too. It is an embarassment to even talk to muslims - ig sikh sread their history and looked at what the violent and inhumain muslims have done to our religion then they would have a different view. We should keep away from there shops, food, men, women and ceratinly not let sikh children mix with muslims (especially pakistani muslims - as these are the lowest of the low!). There are enough sikh slags marrying muslims and having children - this makes me physicaly sick. There will be a day when muslims get there retribution - I hope that is soon and I for one will fight with any religion that is against Muslims.

Vaheguru ji ka khalsa, vaheguru ji ki fateh.

Ranjjy - why bother to end that bigotted statement with a pious phrase?

after reading Ranjjy's comment, my sole rxn is...*vomit*

islam and sikhism are totally differnt
people try to make sikhism a branch off islam and even hinduism which is totally false as well.

heres all the answers:

http://www.searchsikhism.com/islam.html

and

http://www.searchsikhism.com/hinduism.html

Jah bless!

Seriously, everyone here needs to CHILL.
One thing I've noticed is this whole "Sikh vs. Muslim" thing is HUGE in Uk for some stupid reason,
and the people who are involved in this are just a bunch of immature idiots who don't know anything
about their own faith and yet go around making the rules and shouting how great they are.

I don't know why they can't live in peace. Seriously if you don't want to mingle with them, so be it,
stay in your cave and live by your own rules.

And in reply to Indira Gandhi and all, there's a lot of things , horrible things that went on during
her time in Parliament. What about all those Hindu vs. Muslim riots that broke out in Bombay during her
time? Or the famous Golden Temple massacre? How can anyone rule that out and place all the blame on
Khalistani terrorists. In my opinion, whatever is happening in the world today is because of oppression.
Surely if you oppress a group, a select few will rise up and fight. I do not say that the methods are
correct or even humane. No they are not. But there is never fault on just one side. It takes two to play
that game. I don't know of a few people in any faith who would just twiddle their thumbs and smile and invite
tanks and guns into their holy place of worship and watch as thousands of people got killed before their eyes.

Anyways, that is in the past, but we should learn from it. I think that personally there is way too much hatred.
I always thought UK would be a bit different with their huge Muslim and Sikh populations but I can see I
was mistaken. I'm a bit glad that I live in Canada, where this tension between the two communities does not
exist.

Sikhs don't hate muslims.
SIkhism is one of the 2-3 only religions in the world that actually belive in totoal equality amoungst mankind and acceptance of all god's creations. Belive in peace, not war... but if have to defend the oppressed or weak in defence, Sikhs will fight for that and they have for many years. People will always talk but its history that speaks reality. Sikhs faught for all, not just sikhs, Sikhism was primarily started to helped the hindus who were being oppressed...just learn this on ur own like i said.

I just wish there was alot less ignorance and liars like the ones here. And people that don't know and are searching for answers about sikhism etc, need to find out from reliable Sikh sites. Media is the root of all evil, they feed u what they want. like they say, don't take everything they feed you.

peace

Every indian wil be thankful to selfless sacrifices of sikhs for our country. They are integral part of india and they defended hindus from many invasions and atrocities against hindu women.

Ok, you know what the majority of these comments are pathetic. Rather than condemning a "backlash" as you call it, why not condemn, and continue to condemn Islamic extremism and Islamic jihadist which are at the heart of all terrorist attacks and trouble in general.

MJ- Sikhism was not created to protect Hindus. Sikhs became a martial race to defend their own right to practice their religion as well as the right of any adherent of any religion.