Why don't sikhs increase their numbers , like muslims do ? Why are we so complacent ?

[dallysingh101]

14 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

There are some Sikhs out there who feel completely disenfranchised from the mainstream, be it the religious orthodox mainstream, or the middle class, professional types. They don't fit in any of the boxes through no fault of their own. Those are the people who need to be reminded they have a place in our community, because if we don't, then there's going to be opportunists ready to swoop in and turn them against the rest. 

I think the Internet can help big time in this. 

[Guest Jacfsing2]

13 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

religious orthodox mainstream, 

If you said this to me about a year ago; I'd probably be asking why? But now I can see some problems our "religious", people seem to be making; which just pushes an average person away from going to a Gurdwara. Also I'd also deny any "accusations", if you mentioned this when I was a new Amritdhari, but learning so much internally; (not spiritual internal, but political internal), I seem to agree with this now.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

1 minute ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think the Internet can help big time in this. 

Media can make someone look bad; just remember that Akal Takht incident when some SGPC Keshdhari Hindus, (note, not Sikhs), were taking about Kirpans and playing foolish warrior.

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

If you said this to me about a year ago; I'd probably be asking why? But now I can see some problems our "religious", people seem to be making; which just pushes an average person away from going to a Gurdwara. Also I'd also deny any "accusations", if you mentioned this when I was a new Amritdhari, but learning so much internally; (not spiritual internal, but political internal), I seem to agree with this now.

Again, it's not about pinning blame, or going after certain groups. It's just a case of reminding people that as Sikhs we need to look out for each other. I'm not blaming Amritdharis for the woes of the world, lol. I just think we should be at the forefront of certain issues that I wouldn't expect others to bother with. But that's not happening for some reason, or at least not in a noticeable manner.

[californiasardar1]

On 3/24/2017 at 6:27 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Of the former type: I saw an Amritdhari bibi walking with her young, soon to be teenager son, and it was just so clear that the kid would never be of any use under any dire circumstances due to his upbringing. Then I thought about most of the guys I've met (over the years) who did step up (like SP guys) and I realised most of them were just standard Panjabi guys - street guys, usually monay (but not all). It's sad that Amritdharis don't step up much these days, because the whole original Amrit was based around that. I think them living in their bubble is as bad as the type you mention.

 

 

If most of the guys who "step up" in your area are just "standard Punjabi guys," maybe that has something to do with the fact that "standard Punjabi guys" outnumber amritdharis by a ratio of, what, 40 to 1?  50 to 1?  100 to 1?

 

[californiasardar1]

On 3/24/2017 at 2:31 PM, dallysingh101 said:

I tell you what - on the other hand. Having a small amount of quietest, conservative kids that are essentially being micro-groomed for academia and then some plush office job (which is what the majority of affluent Amritdharis consider 'Sikh' child rearing these days), isn't going to create any sort of robust fauj either. 

 

1.  You are complaining that amritdharis/religious sikhs are failing to do what is necessary to create a "robust fauj."  Let me ask you something: in the 1980s, who stepped up and put their lives on the line?  It was 90% amritdharis and/or religious, keshadhari singhs.  They bled, gave up their lives, had their families subjected to all kinds of atrocities.  How much can these people take?

 

2.  Your critique is based on the assumption of what a "robust fauj" is.  The world has changed.  The Sikh nation is not going to liberated by a few unorganized, rag-tag gangs of 20 year old boys in the Punjab countryside.  The Sikh nation is also not going to be liberated by vigilante groups of mundey in Canada or the UK. 

What we need, what we have been sorely lacking for our entire existence, is a strong group of educated, intelligent, and passionate Sikhs who can formulate nuanced, viable strategies for the quam to meet its challenges, and who have the intelligence, resources, and networks to implement such strategies.  With that in mind, I see nothing wrong in amritdhari/religious kids being groomed for success in academics and the professional world.  Look at Jews.  They are smaller in population than we are, but they are generally very well educated and successful, and, on top of that, help each other out.  They wield a tremendous amount of influence and power because they have positioned themselves in such a way.  That's the way for us to get ahead and protect our interests in the modern world.

[dallysingh101]

@californiasardar1

I tell you what mate, I don't know if we are getting a false impression abroad from the media, but from how it appears that US Sikhs regularly get stomped over there by racists, I'd say that Sikh men manning up over there is a very good idea. 

[californiasardar1]

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

@californiasardar1

I tell you what mate, I don't know if we are getting a false impression abroad from the media, but from how it appears that US Sikhs regularly get stomped over there by racists, I'd say that Sikh men manning up over there is a very good idea. 

 

 

Let me ask you something dallysingh.  Where are you from?  From your usage of the word "mate", I presume you are from England.  Is that right?

Well, in England, you have around 500,000 Sikhs, and 95% of them are concentrated in two areas: the London metropolitan area and the midlands (Birmingham-Wolverhampton-Coventry).  Furthermore, within those two regions, you have many areas with relatively large Sikh presences (Southall, Hounslow, Slough, Handsworth, etc.).  Am I right?

So you people have a population density where you can actually do something if you choose to.  You can form little gangs or whatever to protect the community.  You actually HAVE a community.  You have a critical mass of Sikhs in certain areas and can exert your influence.  We don't have that here.

 

I don't think Sikhs in the UK or Canada understand how things are for Sikhs in the US.  But for one thing, there is a vast difference in population density.  Here, we have a population of maybe 200,000-250,000 Sikhs in a country with a population of about 320 million.  Canada has about 500,000 Sikhs in a country with a population of 35 million and England has about 500,000 Sikhs in a country with a population of 53 million.  That's a huge difference.  To make matters worse, the Sikh community in America is very spread out compared to the community in Canada or England.  We aren't concentrated here in two metropolitan regions (like London/Midlands or Toronto/Vancouver).  We are spread out all over the country, and most Sikhs in America live in areas where there are relatively few Sikhs.  There is no critical mass here (for the most part), and hardly a "community".

So it is easy for you to sit there and say that Sikh men in America need to "man up" and protect the community.  But here, we are so thinly dispersed and isolated that it is literally every man for himself.  We can't band together and help each other or exert any influence on a local level.  The best we can do is to try to educate people and spread awareness through the media and through the internet.  So Sikhs here make a big effort to publicize hate crimes in order to draw attention to the issue and join with other minority groups and civil rights organizations to combat this.  And that leads to tough guys sitting in front of their laptops in England or Canada jumping to conclusions about Sikhs in America getting stomped over and the supposed weakness of Sikh men in America. 

 

[dallysingh101]

Quote

So you people have a population density where you can actually do something if you choose to.  You can form little gangs or whatever to protect the community.  You actually HAVE a community.  You have a critical mass of Sikhs in certain areas and can exert your influence.  We don't have that here.

Are you kidding me.

You have communities there over a 100 years old. You have massive concentrations in Richmond Hill and probably a bunch of other places too. 

14 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

And that leads to tough guys sitting in front of their laptops in England or Canada jumping to conclusions about Sikhs in America getting stomped over and the supposed weakness of Sikh men in America. 

 

Look, this feminisation of Sikh males isn't confined to one country. It's a global phenomena. However, we've seen a lot of Sikhs being attacked in the US, so it isn't like there isn't a problem there.  

[californiasardar1]

17 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Are you kidding me.

You have communities there over a 100 years old. You have massive concentrations in Richmond Hill and probably a bunch of other places too. 

Look, this feminisation of Sikh males isn't confined to one country. It's a global phenomena. However, we've seen a lot of Sikhs being attacked in the US, so it isn't like there isn't a problem there.  

 

Are you kidding me?  How does Richmond Hill compare to West London or Brampton or Surrey?  It's absolutely nothing.  You've really got to be joking.

lol @ "probably a bunch of other places".  That lets me know you don't understand the population distribution here.

 

These "100 year old" communities that you are referring to are all hype.  In the early 1900s, a small handful of Sikhs came to California, and 99% of them ended up marrying Mexican women and assimilating into mainstream American culture.  Their children and grandchildren have no connection to Sikhi (or even Punjabi culture).  For all intents and purposes, the "Sikh community" that existed 100 years ago disappeared.  You don't meet anyone here whose family has been here for generations.  After the early 1900s community merged into the "mainstream" and disappeared, Sikhs didn't exist in America in sizable numbers until the 1980s.

 

Anyway, if after all I've said, you don't understand how vastly different the situation for Sikhs in America is compared to the situation for Sikhs in England or Canada, I don't know what to tell you.