Jump to content
singhbj singh

Should we use Graffiti to spread Awareness ?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

No! We should not support this. Even though Guru Sahib has no picture this guy is supporting a form of Manmat that Sikhi is equal to false religions like Islam.

That is your interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

It matters because he's been painted sitting next to Guru Sahib. Why not research something before posting it, if that's not too much hard work for you. "Who knows & cares..." Stupid response.

There's nothing to say the face covered man/woman is supposed to be Mohammed. The painting to the left is also NOT guru sahib. It's simply an artist impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

problem is the medium Graffiti is temporary and often overwritten/drawn , It makes more sense to have dynamic sewa  in locales to get the buzz about sikhi going instead , that way Guru ji is appreciated firstly for creating us .

Wall Graffiti is meant to create Awareness amongst non-Sikhs.

Poor Americans on street don't know about Sikh attire, culture & beliefs.

Which is the reason for promoting such initiatives.

Temporary is good that way old makes way for new artwork.

Gurdwara's with help of local council can organise an Annual Event to draw crowds n votes :p

Rich sponsors can get their faces painted in the theme too O:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, singhbj singh said:

Wall Graffiti is meant to create Awareness amongst non-Sikhs.

Poor Americans on street don't know about Sikh attire, culture & beliefs.

Which is the reason for promoting such initiatives.

Temporary is good that way old makes way for new artwork.

Gurdwara's with help of local council can organise an Annual Event to draw crowds n votes :p

Rich sponsors can get their faces painted in the theme too O:)

problem is a picture cannot speak and correct misinterpretations , graffiti has links with claiming territory and may be seen as foreign entities taking over a neighbourhood especially now , nothing better than the human touch and talking.

You a catholic by any chance because they love this style of selling space in their churches to rich folks? .

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

problem is a picture cannot speak and correct misinterpretations , graffiti has links with claiming territory and may be seen as foreign entities taking over a neighbourhood especially now , nothing better than the human touch and talking.

You a catholic by any chance because they love this style of selling space in their churches to rich folks? .

The first graffiti has been around for years.

I thought it was new but checked other sources which go back to 2014.

There have been no report of any bad incident relating to this graffiti.

Human touch & talking is good so get BOS or Sikh Channels to interview the artist n locals.

Am no catholic or even a Sikh just straight forward practical person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
14 minutes ago, singhbj singh said:

Am no catholic or even a Sikh 

I wouldn't really expect that you weren't Sikh, but it seems to make sense now. (Your words not mine.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
3 hours ago, S4NGH said:

That is your interpretation.

Do you think Muhammad was a nice guy? (At a minimum?) I may not be a supporter of Jesus; however, at least his intention was legit, (not logical; however, for a false God his heart was in the right place), but with Muhammad he was a mad man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2017 at 4:26 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

Do you think Muhammad was a nice guy? (At a minimum?) I may not be a supporter of Jesus; however, at least his intention was legit, (not logical; however, for a false God his heart was in the right place), but with Muhammad he was a mad man.

Do you know Jesus personally? Or are you going by the bedtime stories told by the children of his friends and followers and god knows who many many years after his death, which have been altered 100s of times often to suit political agendas? I've no idea where Jesus's heart was or whether the guy even existed. Frankly, I care not. Do I think Muhammed was a nice guy? What does it matter what I think? I'm nobody. Again, I really couldn't give a hoot.

I only care about Jagat Guru. Ain't no one compare to them. :) peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2017 at 4:26 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

Do you think Muhammad was a nice guy? (At a minimum?) I may not be a supporter of Jesus; however, at least his intention was legit, (not logical; however, for a false God his heart was in the right place), but with Muhammad he was a mad man.

Actually Jesus never said he was the son of god or God for that part. That was a delusion later on propagated by the Roman Christian Church under Constantine I think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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...

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Another point I would like to mention for fellow history lovers like is that generally if we look at all non Sikh sources mentioning Sihs and their practises we get a clearer picture than reading our Granths. The Granths were written from a certain mindset, schooling, 'sect' influence and sometimes even vested interests. While non Sikh authors usually wrote after observing Sikhs from several places and often even contrasting, comparing the behaviours of Sikhs across India. While narrow minded non Sikh narratives exist, a dozen sources can be found which clearly imply that Sikhi of the 18th century was more devoid of anti-Gurmat influences than that of the 19th century or Sikh literature (written mostly by Nirmalas who did not represent a majority of the Sikh dharam). Lots of non Sikh sources clearly mention that Sikhs generally did not observe casteist practises.
        “When a person is once admitted into that (Sikh) fraternity, they make no scruple of associating with him, of whatever tribe, clan or race he may have been hitherto; nor do they betray any of those scruples and prejudices so deeply rooted in the Hindu mind.”
      – Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan (Siyar ul mutakherin, 1783)
    • Chibber's narrative should be read in a context. He was born in a family which was held in great respect and esteem by the Sikh community; several prominent members of this family being treasurers, constant companions or martyrs of the Guru's house. The last notable Chibber in the community was Chaupa Singh who was executed in the 1720s. It seems that the Chibber influence within the community diminished in the coming decades, bolstering envy and rage amongt the Chibbers who had seen their parivaars influence wane over the decades. Hence there were several attempts in Chibber literature of the mid 18th century to infer a preferential ranking of Chibber Brahmins and introduce casteist practises once again (see Rehatnama Chaupa Singh for example). This a theory I have developed myself so can not quote scholars who advocated this theory but all the facts can be double checked. We always have to read into an authors background and motives for writing a certain text. The sect that manipulated Guru Nanak Dev's Janamsakhis saying the Guru married a Muslim woman did so to cover the defect of their own leader who had married a Muslim lady (and was thus viewed as an outcaste by the larger society). Similarly several writers have tried to link Mani Singh to their own lineage or caste (Gyani Gian Singh 'Dullat' made Bhai Mani Singh a Dullat as well despite the lack of proof in 18th century literature of any such claim).

      Therefore I do not believe the Sakhi posted by the OP to be true, Chibber had a vested agenda to promote casteism and more specifically the preferential ranking of the (Chibber) Brahmins. Ever noticed how the Chibber literature cleverly says a Chibber put Patasey in the first Khandi Di Pahul ceremony, were the first to take amrit and so on? (historically contradicted by all existing written sources) [Bansawlinama Chapter 10 I believe]. Similarly the Rehatnama (oldest copy 1765, written by Kesar Singh Chibbers father Gurbaksh Singh Chibber) asks Sikhs to give preferential treatment to Chibber Brahmins.
    •     I know why he got arrested.  And I am not saying they targeted him because they thought "oh he is a mona so it makes him an easy target."   I am saying that because he is a mona, and because he is used to being able to identify as a Sikh when it suits him and fly under the radar when it is inconvenient, he was not as vigilant as he should have been.  Someone who goes through their entire life being identifiable as a Sikh every minute of every day, and experiences all of the baggage that that entails, is not going to have any illusions about what would await him in India if he was behind a website like neverforget84.
×