Sikhs Are Faced With Hatred

There are about 500,000 Sikhs in the U. S. Frequently, they are beaten or killed. Haters shout “rag head” at them in public.

I assume some of this hatred is because many people believe Sikhs are Muslims or perhaps Hindus. They are neither. There is no justification to treat either Muslims or Hindus this way either.

Sikhs in the U. S. are concentrated on the east and west coast. While many are trained in professions they are unable to find professional work and drive cabs in big cities.

According to surviving newspaper reports, in 1907 500 white men, members of the Asiatic Exclusion League, attacked Sikhs and other Asians in Bellingham, WA. The Sikhs had been recruited to come from India to work in the lumber industry. They ran for their lives and scattered around the countryside.

The Sikhs began in the late 1400’s under the teachings of Guru Nanak. He lived in the Punjab area India and protested the dominance of the Hindu and Muslim faiths. He taught equality between men and women, preacher and congregant, ruler and serf and high born and untouchable. Today we call such teaching the social gospel.

This equality between categories and classes was just as repugnant then as it is today. When we see religious statements on the news today it is a row of men in suits when it is conservative Protestants and a row of male clergy when Catholic. This equality thing is not to be tolerated.

Let’s hope discrimination against Sikhs comes to an end one day soon.

22 Responses

  1. Juan Ruiz

    Not to throw a wrench in this encomium, but let’s not forget two of them assassinated Indira Gandhi…bodyguards no less.

    1. Juan 6:46 but let’s not forget two of them assassinated Indira Gandhi…bodyguards no less.

      Yes, there is that. They were Sikh nationalists. Some Sikh’s are part of a political movement in India to make the area of Punjab province into a Sikh nation like Pakistan and Bangladesh were separated off from the more Hindu areas to be Muslim countries. As we all know, we’ve had some assassinations and other attempts.

    2. entech

      There have been extremists from every religious group that have committed atrocities in the name of their cause or god.

  2. Marko

    I served in the US military alongside Sikhs. Go screw yourself Jon. Trying to stir shit up in the name if YOUR agenda. F you. You make me sick. I only hope to say it to your face.

    1. entech

      I have re-read the cited article and Jon’s words and yours. I am at a loss to imagine what you are talking about, like so many anti-athiests (if we have anti-theists why not the corollary) your words make no sense except as a reflection of an underlying need to find fault with “Anything” anyone not of your belief system may say. At the same time people like you and Heather are constantly squawking about being put down and ridiculed when 95% of the time it is either disagreement or pointing out possible conflict or contradiction.
      Jon wrote a sympathetic piece about the plight of Sikhs in America, Juan pointed out that they have not always been innocent (the assassination of Gandhi, for nationalistic reasons). I expanded on this by commenting that there is (probably) no group that is entirely innocent. You seem to demonstrate a common trait among Christian respondents to this blog.

    2. Marko 11:42 I served in the US military alongside Sikhs. Go screw yourself Jon. Trying to stir shit up in the name if YOUR agenda. F you. You make me sick. I only hope to say it to your face.

      I get the feeling from reading your post you are unhappy with me. Don’t feel alone. Others are unhappy with me too. I hope all those who hate this blog have a good day.

  3. Jinx II

    I lived in a city for about 11 years that had a large population of Sikhs. My daughter lives near a large Sikh community with 2 kids and husband. These people are wonderful, they will help anyone and strangers at a blink of an eye. Any sad or stressful event and they are at your door with food, offers of babysitting or looking after frail elderly family members or anything you could possibly need during a difficult time. Maybe you need another perspective than your military experience.

  4. Henry

    Jon:“The Sikhs had been recruited to come from India to work in the lumber industry. They ran for their lives and scattered around the countryside.”

    Rotating machinery as present in lumber industry has always been a hazard when loose clothing (head sheets, night shirts, etc.) is involved. The supposed “social justice” crowd will always assume the worst, not taking civil customs, time frame, and practicality into account. For example, the Walmart parking lot incident is long over, and the previously warring parties to their credit are now practically sleepover and spa friends. Despite this, the “social justice” crowd won’t let go. (Just read the letters to the editor.) Would that be hate or unforgiveness of this white woman and the rest of her “ilk”?

    1. Henry 7:33 Rotating machinery as present in lumber industry has always been a hazard when loose clothing (head sheets, night shirts, etc.) is involved.

      There were chain saws in 1907? I did not know that.

      1. Henry

        When you are at Rollag, just walk through the lumber mill with your head sheet and night shirt and see what happens with all the 1800’s era machinery buzzing, turning, and rotating. It is worse than a chain saw. You need to correctly assess the time frame.

        1. Henry 9:49 Yes, there were saw mills. I don’t think there were chain saws. In any event, you are making up something about the Sikhs–they were not run out of lumber mill areas for their own safety. They were run out, according to what I read about press coverage at the time, because white people hated them. If it was because white people were worried about the safety of Sikhs working in the industry it was not mentioned.

          1. Henry

            Of course not. That wouldn’t fit the narrative of “women’s studies” or the post-modern “social justice” crowd. Of course they would obsess over the past wrongs done by particularly as you would call them, “whites”. You as well pick that water up and carry it, distinguishing and assessing supposed behaviors between skin color.

            Lets talk about making something up. You straw man and create the chainsaw argument when that wasn’t said. You will have to properly assess the era.(They also had steam donkeys with winches and cabling). I do not think it is reasonable for men walking around with flowing sheets to be in that environment. That is common sense, and you do not need a supposed news article to tell you about that.

          2. Henry 12:07 I do not think it is reasonable for men walking around with flowing sheets to be in that environment.

            If it was dangerous and unproductive to have Sikhs sawing down trees and pulling them out those who encouraged and hired them to work in the industry would not have done so and the Sikh workers would not have taken such jobs. Often, your preference for socialism comes through loud and clear. You would have regulated the Sikhs out from their willing employers and willing workers.

            But, as newspaper reports tells us, they were beaten and run out by fear and prejudice. So far as we know, it had nothing to do with safety.

            That wouldn’t fit the narrative of “women’s studies” or the post-modern “social justice” crowd. Of course they would obsess over the past wrongs done by particularly as you would call them, “whites”.
            I take it from that statement slavery never happened nor did segregation of black people. It was all just a story made up by the “social justice” crowd. Doctored photos of “White only” schools and water fountains were the norm.

          3. Henry

            Jon:“You would have regulated the Sikhs out from their willing employers and willing workers.”

            Another leap of atheist logic. Do atheists always start out assuming the worst of others until they find out differently (and not even then)?

            Concerning society at the time, if you would have read the newspaper headlines, society also protected the Sikhs, bringing them to the mill under armed guard. That there were individual transgressions, sure. However, your broadbrush of white society wholesale persecuting them doesn’t wash. That is just a “woman’s studies” agitation and mantra in satisfying their own bigotry and agenda. You happily carry their water.

          4. Henry 1:44 Another leap of atheist logic. Do atheists always start out assuming the worst of others until they find out differently (and not even then)?

            Now we’re getting funny here. Do you realize there are thousands of comedians out of work and new ones are not needed? There are newspaper accounts and stories passed down corroborating attracts on Sikhs. So far as I know there are no disputes that it happened, except what you just made up.

            Your belief that slavery and segregation never happened tells us why you would believe prejudice against Sikhs never happened either.

          5. Henry

            Jon:“Your belief that slavery and segregation never happened tells us why you would believe prejudice against Sikhs never happened either.”

            Now you went from a leap of atheist logic to an outright lie. YOU are the only one in this thread talking about slavery and segregation. YOU were not told by me that prejudice against Sikhs never happened. In fact, I acknowledged the prejudice. This is desperation on your part. You really need to get re-engaged in your condo grass growing project and do something productive. You have become a steam donkey without the steam.

          6. Henry 4:49 . YOU were not told by me that prejudice against Sikhs never happened. In fact, I acknowledged the prejudice.

            OK–I went back and read your posts and see you made passing reference to “social customs at the time” which could be taken as acknowledging prejudice.
            Then you launched into that views on the Sikhs of 1904 had something to do with the “women’s movement.” So, I launched into a view that if you could link my views on the Sikhs to the women’s movement I could link yours to ambivalence to race prejudice. Since I said nothing about the women’s movement and you said nothing about slavery we are tied. It’s all good.

          7. Henry

            I said nothing about the woman’s movement. You are again bringing up a whole new subject. I did bring up women’s studies, a very broad discipline that actually goes beyond women’s studies, and also includes anything gay and the issues in this topic, whether real, contrived, or embellished.

Leave a Reply