Jump to content

Interesting Times Article On Afghani War


dalsingh101

Recommended Posts

We are far too sentimental about ‘our boys’

We must drop the flowery language about sacrifice. British soldiers aren’t conscripts; they volunteer to risk their lives

Matthew Parris

It was a shrewd decision by television professionals to bring to Wootton Bassett representatives from the worlds of politics, the media and the military for this week’s BBC Question Time. But it went straight to the heart of what’s wrong with our approach as a nation to war-fighting in Afghanistan. Both sides to the debate — pro and anti-war protagonists alike — need to lower their claims by a good few notches. Wootton Bassett is about coffins, sacrifice, death and glory. These are the wrong terms in which to try to justify a war like this, and those who defend it make a mistake to set the bar so high. They will fail to clear it.

As the military situation has deteriorated this year, I’ve been struggling to accommodate some hard truths I think I see. The first is that America has been unwise in leading her allies into this Afghan war; and we British unwise to push ourselves forward for the particular task that we undertook in Helmand. That was a serious and avoidable mistake and will in due course deserve inquiry. I suspect that an up-and-at-’em element in our military leadership, still smarting from Basra, played its part; with a trigger-happy Defence Secretary (John Reid) and a supine and ill-briefed Cabinet in supporting roles.

The second is that having got ourselves into this mess, we cannot now quit without tremendous damage to our alliance with the United States. It would be against our national interest to break that bond.

The third is that Nato/Isaf’s mission in Afghanistan will, nevertheless, probably end in failure. I think we know this, and in time the Americans will come to accept it too.

The fourth follows, and try as I might I cannot avoid it: that in the year ahead some of our servicemen and women are going to die in a cause we already suspect to be doomed, except in terms of keeping faith with the United States.

My struggle has been to admit this to myself, and accept that there is not one of these propositions I can honestly duck. I must accept the logic of where they point: that we are sending people to die in a military cause that our leaders know is probably lost and that this could be the right thing to do.

How can I reconcile myself to this? Oddly enough, it is Wootton Bassett, and everything that it stands for, that has helped me. In an epoch of small wars in confusing and ambiguous causes, and with a fully professional military, we should not be emotionally ramping up what armed conflict is sometimes about. We are using the Second World War language of national survival and conscripted soldiers — “our boys” — to discuss what ought to be discussed as a limited operation, of an optional nature, in support of an important ally, using professional service-people working in their chosen career. There is not a single conscript in the British Armed Forces.

This is not a fight for our very existence, our whole way of life, all that is dear to us. It is not a race against time to forestall carnage on our streets at home. The pro-war brigade should cease talking up the stakes in these overblown terms.

The anti-war brigade, meanwhile, should drop the unreasonable claim that war-fighting can only be justified as a battle for survival. That is not how British foreign and military policy works. the Second World War was the exception, not the paradigm.

We keep an army, navy and air force as tools of foreign policy, in order both to defend and promote our national interests. These interests may include assisting allies in wars that we might not ourselves have chosen, which may have been mistakenly embarked upon, and in which victory may be unlikely. For the sake of honouring a vital alliance it may be necessary to continue our involvement well past the point at which the unlikelihood of victory has become apparent to us, and until it becomes apparent to our ally too.

The mission is being persisted with for reasons other than the likelihood of success. Soldiers are risking death for reasons other than military victory. They have signed up for these risks. They are being paid to take them. It is what they want to do. Many of them find satisfaction, even excitement, in fighting. As a matter of fact, recruitment to the Armed Forces is going well. That it is up 25 per cent at present may be not “despite” (as the commentary supposes) but because of publicity about danger. As Prince Edward was unwise enough to admit, “Hey — you could die doing this!” is to many men a recommendation.

Every death, of course, as the Prime Minister likes to remind Parliament at Prime Minister’s Questions each Wednesday, is a personal tragedy. And it is true that in the first nine years of this century we have lost many hundreds of service personnel, killed in action.

We have also lost a comparable number of employees in the farming and construction industries — about 90 last year, also killed, if you will, in action. But we do not define these trades in terms of death or sacrifice; we do not count the coffins; they do not come to one place. Viewed over the last half century and in coolly statistical terms, a young person’s decision to sign up for the Armed Forces has not invited a greater career risk of death or serious injury than the decision to sign up for a career in railway lineside track maintenance.

I do not, by reflecting coldly on the statistics, mean to devalue the enormous courage required in war-fighting. But I do think it time, given the entirely professional Armed Forces we now have, to stop viewing war-fighting as a form of service to country and community that is completely different from other things that people do for a living and because they enjoy it. In its heyday the French Foreign Legion was admired — certainly — by French voters, but more cynically. Members of the Foreign Legion were thought to have a job, sometimes a murky one; and those within it were doing a job: a job not without its own incentives.

We too should learn to be more sanguine. If we, the people, were a little less sentimental about a war like this latest one, perhaps those we elect might risk more honesty about its prospects and its purposes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6953923.ece

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this guy is saying is that they should return to how the army was treated back in the day, i.e. the upper class view of the army. That is that they are a bunch of anglo saxons who should be honoured to have the chance to shed their blood for the those at the top - who want to pursue whatever whim they want whilst sipping tea in Buckingham Palace/Downing Street/HoP/Whitehall. But of course he cant say that as it would be a stinging slap in the face of the average briton.

It's quite funny really. The British left us sikhs to deal with the hindu-horde democracy and gave the muslim punjabis the chance to build their own future at the expense of ours. But thanks to America's supremacy, the finer points of democracy are spreading throughout their cultural/economic colonies too(like the Uk, whether the upper class like it or not). That means the wishes and sentiments of the mob have a heavier weight than is reasonable. If they get too much weight, it could cause problems. Like the hypocritical and bizarre support for an army but not the war they are fighting. The article writer knows this will lead to problems and maybe even a military defeat. The question is, how will the top of the british power structure reassert it's dominance over the bottom masses? Writing articles wont do it, so lets see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it like that HSD.

How I interpret the piece is the author realising that the whole web of lies and propaganda around their wars is unravelling. He recognises the danger this may have in terms of dissonace and demoralisation of the general wasp public and is trying to suggest that they take their deference of their soldiers down a peg to make accepting the inevitable deaths over essentially political goals (so called national interests) more palatable. This would entail a significant shift away from the conspicuous moralistic justifications that formed the original propaganda for their actions (taliban dem be bad man, dey no let women wear bikini and go school, bad taliban! we will crush you!). Soak it in - it's the nearest you'll get to a wasp being honest.

He suggests this because I think he knows keeping up the fake pretence will become more and more difficult if the war goes on, especially in the light of the real possibility of them losing militarily. They want out but are trapped because of their desire to be seen as being bum-chums par excellence of the Americans, whilst also not wanting to look like losers back home. As the song goes "we're caught in a trap, I can't walk out".

But thanks to America's supremacy, the finer points of democracy are spreading throughout their cultural/economic colonies too(like the Uk, whether the upper class like it or not). That means the wishes and sentiments of the mob have a heavier weight than is reasonable.

I don't know, these common people (in the UK) have been conditioned to keep their heads down for centuries. The only realistic movement against the ruling classes right now with any conspicuous support is the BNP one. Explain how you think these 'finer points of democracy' are spreading here?

If they get too much weight, it could cause problems.

I can't see these lot do a post-Ranjit Khalsa special (i.e.. becoming de facto arbiters) myself, but nothings impossible.

Like the hypocritical and bizarre support for an army but not the war they are fighting.

Since when has hypocrisy ever mattered to certain people.

The article writer knows this will lead to problems and maybe even a military defeat.

Not at all HSD. What will cause a military defeat is the actions and tactics of those fighting in Pak and Afghanistan, nowt else.

The question is, how will the top of the british power structure reassert it's dominance over the bottom masses? Writing articles wont do it, so lets see what happens

I'm with the working class quite heavily, they don't seem anywhere near breaking ranks with their master class anytime soon from what I see? The only thing that is pi55ing lumpen sections off is, you've guessed it!, immigration. lol

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I interpret the piece is the author realising that the whole web of lies and propaganda around their wars is unravelling. He recognises the danger this may have in terms of dissonace and demoralisation of the general wasp public and is trying to suggest that they take their deference of their soldiers down a peg to make accepting the inevitable deaths over essentially political goals (so called national interests) more palatable. This would entail a significant shift away from the conspicuous moralistic justifications that formed the original propaganda for their actions (taliban dem be bad man, dey no let women wear bikini and go school, bad taliban! we will crush you!). Soak it in - it's the nearest you'll get to a wasp being honest.

Exactly, he wants the public to view the army with the same indifference which was common before the World Wars, back when the masses knew their place.

The taliban strategy is to kill as many soldiers as they can. This will cause problems for the british public who are too jingoistic about the soldiers. If they werent, and no one cared too much for the dead, the taliban would lose their war as they could never outfight NATO. There only chance then would be to make the war too expensive for the West to fight.

He suggests this because I think he knows keeping up the fake pretence will become more and more difficult if the war goes on, especially in the light of the real possibility of them losing militarily. They want out but are trapped because of their desire to be seen as being bum-chums par excellence of the Americans, whilst also not wanting to look like losers back home. As the song goes "we're caught in a trap, I can't walk out".

He doesnt even talk about the false pretences - which was 9/11 and Bin Laden. Helmand is a problem because the Yanks pissed away their popularity their. After the invasion, the talibs were broken. But when american troops were transferred to fight in iraq, the british said they could do the easier afghan peacekeeping. Unfortunately this handed the taliban a propaganda victory as they could now argue that the americans were just like the brits, and were a modern day incarnation of the British Empire. The british army found itself facing popular unrest and it all kicked off. To maintain the war, the west say they are spreading democracy or preventing the spread of terrorism. Which they are, but not with the vigour you would expect them to if they really believed in their own reasons.

I don't know, these common people (in the UK) have been conditioned to keep their heads down for centuries. The only realistic movement against the ruling classes right now with any conspicuous support is the BNP one. Explain how you think these 'finer points of democracy' are spreading here?

Civil unrest, the media chasing readers by using controversy and the ability to get rid of those who are unpopular are all 'finer points of democracy' (a phrase i used sarcastically as these are quite crude). In the good old days people wouldnt go beyond grumbling in their own homes. The public seems to be getting above themselves in the way they act and think. More open whinging and whining, along with showing what they are thinking without even considering the implications. The mob power is growing in this country, and will reach a point of no return if public opinion starts influencing anything and everything. Just like in the USA.

I can't see these lot do a post-Ranjit Khalsa special (i.e.. becoming de facto arbiters) myself, but nothings impossible.

You know they would love that role. There's just too many institutions and government interference in society to let them get what they want. But if those institutions and govt feel beholden to the whims of the masses for whatever reasons, then they will achieve the kind of anglo-soviet-communal command they want.

Since when has hypocrisy ever mattered to certain people.

Well it matters if the enemy exploit it. Like the taliban are doing with the high level of affection the public have with the army.

Not at all HSD. What will cause a military defeat is the actions and tactics of those fighting in Pak and Afghanistan, nowt else.

If the average soldier is infected with the same attitude that the public have, the defeat will be entirely military. Look at vietnam, where soldiers began to feel the same way as the public. If Private Peter gets upset at what he hears at home, then goes to Sangingrad to feel the heat, bullets and his overbearing Sergeant, it may be enough for him to say 'F this, i dont want to do this anymore'. If this keeps on happening, new people will have to be trained but will still be susceptible to the public and veteran's views. If the commanders and politicians start feeling that they cant win with soldiers who arent giving it 110%, it puts them in a difficult position.

I'm with the working class quite heavily, they don't seem anywhere near breaking ranks with their master class anytime soon from what I see? The only thing that is pi55ing lumpen sections off is, you've guessed it!, immigration. lol

From a brown sikh's view they may be all the same, with the same ambitions, goals etc but it's obvious that the bottom feels that in a democracy they should have their whims catered to. The top doesnt really oblige fully but it gives them what they feel is enough to keep them stable. Under New Labour this reached ridiculous levels, and guess what, it just created a cycle of greed among the lower classes. The next goverment will have to do something as it has reached unsustainable levels already. Hopefully the Conservatives will lie their way to power and then pull the carpet from under the bottom feeders. But whatever happens, these are definitely interesting times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, he wants the public to view the army with the same indifference which was common before the World Wars, back when the masses knew their place.

From what I understand, those in the military (even infantry) had an even greater status in Victorian times than foot soldiers have now. Given the grim working class options at the time (chimney sweep, cobbler, pie and mash merchant, coal miner, dockyard worker or general cockney spiv etc. etc.), getting accepted into army was a result. And you're right, the aims of the army was never cynically questioned as some do now. Everything done was for the good of country and anyone not supporting the 'cause' was unpatriotic.

Society at the time was geared towards military spectacle and propaganda even worse than today. Some of us older lot actually lived through the last dying throws of this period when a large percentage of the toys available for boys had distinct militaristic flavours like model fighter aircraft and other transports, toy soldiers, realistic looking toy guns. These were best sellers back then as well as accounts of military 'adventures'. If you think about it, most of those contemporary accounts of the Wasp-Singh wars we read now to try and shine some light on our itihaas actually had a good market in their own times. Even seemingly innocent childhood activities such as the Cub Scouts and Boys Brigade had distinct military connotations and were essentially preparation for later service. They grew up on tales of a wasp soldier bravely clearing foxholes knife in mouth and all that........lol

This public deference for the soldiers is something that survives from the colonial period, where the popularity of the forces was kept up through propaganda and fueling of the national patriotic ego by the ruling classes. As they achieved military success after success (or so the public were told back home) the soldiers were marketed as the brave heroes of their time.

In anycase, I still think the majority of Johnny Saxon know their place in the wasp scheme even today. That is why the sullay are so clever in that they know exactly what they are doing when they piss on the homecoming parades of soldiers. It strikes at the core of wasp chauvanism and manufactured identity. That is why all of a sudden even the caveman yobbo pie eating football fans are enraged enough to take to the streets to defend their 'heroes' and in turn starry eyed phudus like FordCapri seem to be ready to get on their knees and pleasure these 'Angry-Saxons' in a fit ecstatic adulation. Sending goray heroes back home sunnay legs is also a coup for the Taliban sullay in that it again strikes at the heart of the myth of the brave, in control, white master race, inherently superior British soldier by making them look weak and helpless.

You seen this before?

remnants_of_an_army1.jpg

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, they didnt have a better status then. Most of them ended up being abused by their posh officers, a lot even had their wives forced into prostitution by officers whilst they were posted abroad. Wars were fought out of a belief that not everyone was equal. Foreigners were worth killing for security and resources. There was a clear link between regent, govt and military. All were supported in equal measure by a public who got prestige, a sense of superiority and multiple trophies/resources from the defeated. No one cared if the soldiers were under equipped or led by idiots. No one cared how many soldiers died as long as they didnt lose anything important. No one cared about Gough's tactics against sikhs, until after Chillianwallah, where it looked like we were one victory from dislodging the whites from punjab and moving on to india.

Society at the time was geared towards military spectacle and propaganda even worse than today. Some of us older lot actually lived through the last dying throws of this period when a large percentage of the toys available for boys had distinct militaristic flavours like model fighter aircraft and other transports, toy soldiers, realistic looking toy guns. These were best sellers back then as well as accounts of military 'adventures'. If you think about it, most of those contemporary accounts of the Wasp-Singh wars we read now to try and shine some light on our itihaas actually had a good market in their own times. Even seemingly innocent childhood activities such as the Cub Scouts and Boys Brigade had distinct military connotations and were essentially preparation for later service. They grew up on tales of a wasp soldier bravely clearing foxholes knife in mouth and all that........lol

Its all about the videogames nowadays. Like killing ruskies in Washington (Modern Warfare 2) or killing religous fanatics in space like Halo. Hell, it's not a bad thing, we need our own videogames and comics about sikhs killing scum for the sake of our youth too.

This public deference for the soldiers is something that survives from the colonial period, where the popularity of the forces was kept up through propaganda and fueling of the national patriotic ego by the ruling classes. As they achieved military success after success (or so the public were told back home) the soldiers were marketed as the brave heroes of their time.

The officers were. Like Nicholson, that little shit who probably hid in a hole during battles and came out with his Flashman-esque stories after the smoke had settled. The average soldier never achieved that kind of status.

You seen this before?

No, but at a guess, is it a survivor of the first Anglo-Afghan War coming back to Jamrud?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, they didnt have a better status then. Most of them ended up being abused by their posh officers, a lot even had their wives forced into prostitution by officers whilst they were posted abroad. Wars were fought out of a belief that not everyone was equal. Foreigners were worth killing for security and resources. There was a clear link between regent, govt and military. All were supported in equal measure by a public who got prestige, a sense of superiority and multiple trophies/resources from the defeated. No one cared if the soldiers were under equipped or led by idiots. No one cared how many soldiers died as long as they didnt lose anything important. No one cared about Gough's tactics against sikhs, until after Chillianwallah, where it looked like we were one victory from dislodging the whites from punjab and moving on to india.

I guess your right. I think I was fooled a bit by the way all of these tossers are giving it large in the many surviving accounts I've read. Didn't know some of their wives became ho's though...lol, where did you get that info? I'm not sure how the average working class actually materially benefitted from the empire here? Was it through the cheap produce they shipped over here? Or was it through employment in related sectors such as at the docks or shipbuilders? One thing that makes me laugh about whitey is how they described all of the unknown illnesses they encountered as 'scurvy' and prescribed the juice of a few limes as a remedy. I think a few of them died of diseases out there. You have to watch that Guns, germs and steel documentary I posted, it tries to answer questions we've pondered here before. One account I read was of some young twat in the mutiny, who too was diagnosed with a condition remedied by 'catch all' lime juice, the book said he died a few weeks after having writ it. I guess they were taken the piss out of. But they deserved every bit of it.

Was it Gough who was accused of being a thick Irishman using Tipperary charge tactics costing so much white blood? There was a bit of a hoo ha in Parliament over here about the amount of dead, but I imagine it quickly hushed when the 1 million pound indemnity and looted treasures started filtering back.

PS - Yes, it's the sole survivor of an Anglo force sent against the Afghans.

Remnants of an Army by Lady Elizabeth Butler.

Depicts Dr. William Brydon, an assistant surgeon in the Bengal Army arriving at the gates of Jellabad on his exhausted and dying horse. He was thought to be the sole survivor of some 16,000 strong army and followers from Kabul, which was forced to retreat the 90 miles over snow covered passes to Jellabad during the first Aghan war. A few others eventually struggled through to the fort.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When you're wounded and left,

On Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out,

To cut up your remains,

Just roll on your rifle,

And blow out your brains,

And go to your Gawd,

Like a soldier."

Rudyard Kipling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depicts Dr. William Brydon, an assistant surgeon in the Bengal Army arriving at the gates of Jellabad on his exhausted and dying horse. He was thought to be the sole survivor of some 16,000 strong army and followers from Kabul, which was forced to retreat the 90 miles over snow covered passes to Jellabad during the first Aghan war. A few others eventually struggled through to the fort.

I read somewhere that the one survivor who managed to arrive back to British held territory during 1st anglo-afghan war was deliberately left alive by the Afghans to send a strong message to the British to stay away from Afghan territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I guess your right. I think I was fooled a bit by the way all of these tossers are giving it large in the many surviving accounts I've read.

Of course they want to project that kind of image. Imagine being some poor fool who is convinced to travel all that way to kill a bunch of foreigners to allow your government and upper class to enjoy the main spoils. They dress up their actions to placate their own minds and create some kind of worth to their lives.

Didn't know some of their wives became ho's though...lol, where did you get that info?

Read the last paragraph in the enlistment and conditions section. I first heard of it when someone from uni I know came out of Sandhurst was going on about how hot some of his soldier's gfs were, and how it was like 'in the good old days' lol. And the british go on about how pervy the sikhs were in the days of the sikh kingdom!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_Victorian_Era

I'm not sure how the average working class actually materially benefitted from the empire here? Was it through the cheap produce they shipped over here? Or was it through employment in related sectors such as at the docks or shipbuilders?

Imagine the relationship of a nation and it's economy as some kind of square based pyramid. The people at the bottom are poor and produce the raw materials i.e. food/coal/wood etc. This is then given to the slightly more skilled who turn it into goods and sell it. The people at the top are the lords/captains of industry who own a lot of the resources needed by those underneath them. The top part also contains the politicians/generals/royalty etc who arrange things to try and maintain the pyramid model. I know its basic but I hope its comprehensive enough to illustrate this:

The british turned up and destroyed the middle and top of other nation's pyramids. They then imposed their own 'pyramid' on the base of the defeated. This automatically moves the bottom of the british structure up a notch. The british pyramid then inherits resources from the conquered nation. It takes this through reparations, taxation or the top class part of the british pyramid taking ownership of the resources that are produced. These were then shipped to britain and used to produce more goods. As all these nations that were subdued by the british no longer have middle or upper sections of their own, they had to rely on the British to produce the other goods, which were sold to them at inflated prices. The low selling price of the resources combined with the high price of the items produced that required skill created poverty in the subdued nations and created a bigger profit for the top of the british pyramid. Over time the non-british nations completely lose the ability to form efficient middle and top structures to their economic pyramid as their institutions/knowledge has been eroded and watered down. This leads to an almost natural state of superiority for the british as they have almost lapped everyone else.

Unluckily for them, there was another twist in the tale. People say afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. The british went there 3 times. No, the real graveyard of the British empire is in Germany. It took them 2 wars but they brought Britain to her knees. During the world wars, the british economy was geared towards war. This created problems for the nations they ruled as the resources they produced were useless. This was a major problem as the british did not let them sell to others. If the british werent buying, or even stealing, what was the point in producing? The british still had administration costs and the cost of war to pay. As they had thieved from and stunted their colonies' economies, who were now not producing as there was less demand for non-war resources, it began to bite the british were it hurt. British people had sucked the world dry, and had run out of anywhere to harvest to maintain their system. The germans were the have-nots in this situation. They looked enviously at the french/british and wanted what they had. The only way they could do that was to humble the french and british, which is what they did. Britain ran her empire so badly that she could not even hold the germans back by themselves in the second world war. But britain was still invaded. Not by the germans, but by the americans. Their army came over, built permanent bases, had the govt hand over all its technology, slept with native women, had their common man strut around like he owned the place and all that other stuff that invaders do. Hell, the british army became a bunch of sepoys. So britain became a corner of the american pyramid, and it fitted very nicely in that position ever since. The bases of the other pyramids they had conquered were cut lose after 1945, to let them form their own middle and top.

If anyone wants to write a Khalsa-centric history book, you can use the above for the international section. Watch out for angry reactions though, lol.

Was it Gough who was accused of being a thick Irishman using Tipperary charge tactics costing so much white blood? There was a bit of a hoo ha in Parliament over here about the amount of dead, but I imagine it quickly hushed when the 1 million pound indemnity and looted treasures started filtering back.

Imagine if the british had fought the first war with fancy maneuvres and full tactical planning etc. The traitors in the Khalsa would have had a hard time defending their military decisions to their sub-commandeers. Goughs tactics were simple which helped to create a smoke screen for the traitors. We fell for it hook, line and sinker. In the second war we outmaneuvered the british but they used the advantages they had gained from the first war (heavy artillery, support of the muslim population, fresh troops etc) which eventually reached a critical mass that the khalsa could not resist. The enemy had completely over-run our turf. But what happened happened. All we can do is honour the memory of those who died in the belief of sikh independence and self-rule, as well as learning from their mistakes. Last Wednesday was the 161st anniversary of the Khalsa victory in the Battle of Chillianwallah. A special thankyou to the son of Hari Singh Nalwa who destroyed the british right flank during that battle if I remember correctly.

PS - Yes, it's the sole survivor of an Anglo force sent against the Afghans.

Remnants of an Army by Lady Elizabeth Butler.

Depicts Dr. William Brydon, an assistant surgeon in the Bengal Army arriving at the gates of Jellabad on his exhausted and dying horse. He was thought to be the sole survivor of some 16,000 strong army and followers from Kabul, which was forced to retreat the 90 miles over snow covered passes to Jellabad during the first Aghan war. A few others eventually struggled through to the fort.

Losses that they recovered from well enough to fight us. It's a shame we never knew enough about the british to come up with effective strategies. If NATO loses in afghanistan, they will make up for it by giving more money to hindustan and invading iran.

Edited by HSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That pyramid conceptualisation is a good one. Your point about krauts bringing down the wasps is interesting. I don't know about the UK relationship with the yanks though.

and it fitted very nicely in that position ever since.
If they had invested heavily in this island I would have agreed, but they haven't really. British and US economy is still relatively separate. Britain is like one of those wannabes that hangs around a gang (the US) wanting to be accepted but never really is, especially now with Obama. Sure they have periods of perceived closeness but that is fickle and I'm wondering when and if US and UK interests will diverge enough to seriously impact the so-called 'special relationship' (read bhund yaari)? The author of the piece I posted shows how desperate they are that Brown is willing to sacrifice about an average of 2 whitey children a week in Afghanistan......to keep everything smooth.

Imagine if the british had fought the first war with fancy maneuvres and full tactical planning etc. The traitors in the Khalsa would have had a hard time defending their military decisions to their sub-commandeers. Goughs tactics were simple which helped to create a smoke screen for the traitors. We fell for it hook, line and sinker. In the second war we outmaneuvered the british but they used the advantages they had gained from the first war (heavy artillery, support of the muslim population, fresh troops etc) which eventually reached a critical mass that the khalsa could not resist. The enemy had completely over-run our turf. But what happened happened. All we can do is honour the memory of those who died in the belief of sikh independence and self-rule, as well as learning from their mistakes. Last Wednesday was the 161st anniversary of the Khalsa victory in the Battle of Chillianwallah. A special thankyou to the son of Hari Singh Nalwa who destroyed the british right flank during that battle if I remember correctly.

Are you suggesting Gough did phudu battlefield tactics to cover up the treachery? I don't agree, it was probably the best he could do. It was effed up getting done like that on our own territory though. Especially so soon after the reverses the wasps suffered at the hands of the Afghans (gilje). But people often say they attacked Panjab as redemption for the trouncing by the vultures and to fill their coffers. By all accounts the Sikh treasury was as rich as a European one and probably richer than many European ones. Hell, Punjab is probably still richer than many Eastern Europe states even now.

Recently I've realised how fractured we are. This is on many dimensions. The main ones being caste, deras, sanatan versus sabha, pro/anti Dasam Granth and after Sonia Deol's doc, I realised Sant Bhindranwale is probably going to be used for the next big split between 'moderate' and 'nut jobs'.

Need to deal with all this as well as the usual issues of amali poona and kurimaar. What an effing task....where to start?

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point about krauts bringing down the wasps is interesting.

They sure did, but managed to get done in themselves doing it. In WW1 they were just trying to get on an even footing with the french and british empires. For WW2, Hitler says that the British Empire was an example of how he would run the German Empire. As the anglos were to greedy to share their world, Hitler changed his tune pretty quickly and said something along the lines of 'Germany will crush Britain like Rome crushed Carthage'. In the end the americans came and crushed them both.

If they had invested heavily in this island I would have agreed, but they haven't really. British and US economy is still relatively separate. Britain is like one of those wannabes that hangs around a gang (the US) wanting to be accepted but never really is, especially now with Obama. Sure they have periods of perceived closeness but that is fickle and I'm wondering when and if US and UK interests will diverge enough to seriously impact the so-called 'special relationship' (read bhund yaari)? The author of the piece I posted shows how desperate they are that Brown is willing to sacrifice about an average of 2 whitey children a week in Afghanistan......to keep everything smooth.

The american way of ruling the world is pretty bizarre compared to the european way. It involves more economic control than military or political, but with a big dollop of ideology as well. Just look at iran where they want to be more 'western'. If iran did become more western, give them 20 years, and then they will just have another fundamentalist revolution. Americanism is so well spun as it appeals to our basic wants on a level most people find hard to realise. Its similar to the way that the british encouraged people in the colonies to think Britain had streets paved with gold. It made many feel inferior even though there was no real difference.

The thing is that britain lost an empire without losing a war. Her capital was never overrun and ruined, her population forced to live in fear and subjugation, their culture was left alone etc. But the americans are here, their culture overrides the native one. It leaves the british in an unusual position. On one hand they are independant and still like they once were, but on the other hand they are the 'poor cousin' in the relationship. I feel that in the end Britain will end up as some kind of contorted mirror image of america's east coast. Either that or (with EU intervention and more immigration) a island reflecting the f***ed up world we live in.

The war in afghanistan is of no real consequence. The families of the injured or dead are the ones who will deal with the burden as the rest of the country moves on. A few veterans might take their feelings out on their wives, but nothing will happen that will shock the bottom class to its core. Plenty of musis from this country have gone to fight for the talibs aswell. Plenty of pakistanis,iranians and arabs are there too, just feeding into the other end of the mince-making-machine. No imam or MP will lose sleep over it. I know that sounds cynical and cold, but that's just the way I see it. The 'special' relationship is worth a lot to the elite of britain as they are just another corner of europe without them.

Are you suggesting Gough did phudu battlefield tactics to cover up the treachery? I don't agree, it was probably the best he could do. It was effed up getting done like that on our own territory though. Especially so soon after the reverses the wasps suffered at the hands of the Afghans (gilje). But people often say they attacked Panjab as redemption for the trouncing by the vultures and to fill their coffers. By all accounts the Sikh treasury was as rich as a European one and probably richer than many European ones. Hell, Punjab is probably still richer than many Eastern Europe states even now.

Just as we lost our best commanders over the years before the first war, the british kept their best ones well away from harm. People like Hardinge and Broadfoot were really conniving sobs, who would know that the Khalsa would smell something was wrong if the british started a war of maneuvres. Gough wanted to invade Khalistan and smash into any sikh army he found. Which is what the average panchayat wanted to do to British India. The jatha commanders were in no position to argue with their men. So when Gough came across and didnt do any fancy deceptions or try to outmaneuvre us, it didnt raise any alarm among the common sikh soldiers when the traitors started screwing things up. If the british hadnt admitted to it after the war, they could still argue that it was the Khalsa general's incompetence rather than disloyalty which cause the sikh army so many problems. If the british had tried something fancy, the traitors would have had to react but at the same time get the Khalsa to still lose, which would have made their decisions a lot more difficult to justify to their own men afterwards.

Have you heard that the british had almost 86,000 men arrayed against us across NW india? As Gough was only given about half of this number it shows that the british were probably even prepared for the possibility that Lal, taj and gulab singh double crossed them.

Anyway, war and conflict is sometimes inevitable. After what happened in afghanistan, the Khalsa probably thought the british would collapse like a house of cards if the sikh army marched on Delhi. The british got their act together before we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine the relationship of a nation and it's economy as some kind of square based pyramid. The people at the bottom are poor and produce the raw materials i.e. food/coal/wood etc. This is then given to the slightly more skilled who turn it into goods and sell it. The people at the top are the lords/captains of industry who own a lot of the resources needed by those underneath them. The top part also contains the politicians/generals/royalty etc who arrange things to try and maintain the pyramid model. I know its basic but I hope its comprehensive enough to illustrate this:

The british turned up and destroyed the middle and top of other nation's pyramids. They then imposed their own 'pyramid' on the base of the defeated. This automatically moves the bottom of the british structure up a notch. The british pyramid then inherits resources from the conquered nation. It takes this through reparations, taxation or the top class part of the british pyramid taking ownership of the resources that are produced. These were then shipped to britain and used to produce more goods. As all these nations that were subdued by the british no longer have middle or upper sections of their own, they had to rely on the British to produce the other goods, which were sold to them at inflated prices. The low selling price of the resources combined with the high price of the items produced that required skill created poverty in the subdued nations and created a bigger profit for the top of the british pyramid. Over time the non-british nations completely lose the ability to form efficient middle and top structures to their economic pyramid as their institutions/knowledge has been eroded and watered down. This leads to an almost natural state of superiority for the british as they have almost lapped everyone else.

Unluckily for them, there was another twist in the tale. People say afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. The british went there 3 times. No, the real graveyard of the British empire is in Germany. It took them 2 wars but they brought Britain to her knees. During the world wars, the british economy was geared towards war. This created problems for the nations they ruled as the resources they produced were useless. This was a major problem as the british did not let them sell to others. If the british werent buying, or even stealing, what was the point in producing? The british still had administration costs and the cost of war to pay. As they had thieved from and stunted their colonies' economies, who were now not producing as there was less demand for non-war resources, it began to bite the british were it hurt. British people had sucked the world dry, and had run out of anywhere to harvest to maintain their system. The germans were the have-nots in this situation. They looked enviously at the french/british and wanted what they had. The only way they could do that was to humble the french and british, which is what they did. Britain ran her empire so badly that she could not even hold the germans back by themselves in the second world war. But britain was still invaded. Not by the germans, but by the americans. Their army came over, built permanent bases, had the govt hand over all its technology, slept with native women, had their common man strut around like he owned the place and all that other stuff that invaders do. Hell, the british army became a bunch of sepoys. So britain became a corner of the american pyramid, and it fitted very nicely in that position ever since. The bases of the other pyramids they had conquered were cut lose after 1945, to let them form their own middle and top.

If anyone wants to write a Khalsa-centric history book, you can use the above for the international section. Watch out for angry reactions though, lol.

Great post HSD!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HSD

I still don't see much US investment in the UK myself? Where is this economic control? Let me know, can't see it myself but this maybe because of where I live.

As for cultural hegemony, at present this seems limited to McD's, Burgerking and Starbucks type joints. Okay so we now have 'malls' and American fashion is quite popular including slang (notice idiot urban youth calling the filth 'feds' these days!). The ideal of 'The American Dream' still seems the polar opposite to the Brit scheme of things though.

Okay things are dumbing down here, but I don't know if the Yanks are responsible for that?

Truth is, I've heard that the US is much less racist and places less obstacles to hard workers than in the UK 'system', so f**k that, maybe Americanisation is a potentially good thing here!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sure did, but managed to get done in themselves doing it. In WW1 they were just trying to get on an even footing with the french and british empires. For WW2, Hitler says that the British Empire was an example of how he would run the German Empire. As the anglos were to greedy to share their world, Hitler changed his tune pretty quickly and said something along the lines of 'Germany will crush Britain like Rome crushed Carthage'. In the end the americans came and crushed them both.

There is a book called Hitler's English Inspirers by Manuel Sarkisyanz which tells how Hitler was a great admirer of England and that he attempted to model Germany's society and empire on it. He was in awe of conventional Englishmen like Churchill and Kipling (rather than just fringe "Fascists") and endeavoured to emulate the cruel, darwinian and white supremacist English Public School system, something that English headmasters took a friendly interest in. I read elsewhere that Hitler wanted educational institutions that moulded students into what he described as "brutal, domineering, fearless, cruel youth" and "beasts of prey". England also provided the inspiration for his policies towards non-Teutons. The mainstream English were very clear on how they had the right to exterminate other races and take over their native lands and this inspired Hitler's ideas for Europe and the USSR. He would refer to conquered areas of the USSR as "our India" (another of Sarkisyanz's books is called From Imperialism to Fascism: Why Hitler's "India" was to be Russia.) It also explains why East Indians were not genocided and replaced like the natives in USA/Canada/Aus/NZ.

Here is a synopsis and a Russian language full text of his book.

http://www.atholbooks.org/current/sarkisyanz_review.php

http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/History/sark/index.php

Edited by Dharma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a book called Hitler's English Inspirers by Manuel Sarkisyanz which tells how Hitler was a great admirer of England and that he attempted to model Germany's society and empire on it.

So the wasps inspired nazism......

.........I should have known.......

.........I should have known.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see much US investment in the UK myself? Where is this economic control? Let me know, can't see it myself but this maybe because of where I live.

It depends on what you mean by investment. No one has looked into the accounts of British India but it's obvious they stole more than they 'invested'. What they did invest (army/civil service/ports/railways etc) was just to make it easier to control and tax the subcontinent.

Going back to the pyramid analogy, imagine america as a strong well put together square based pyramid, like the ones in Egypt would have looked like before the muslims defaced them. The reason america has such a strong pyramid is because of its 'consecutive structure' - each state in america is next to the other one, with each state built from the ground up to give the specific qualities/resources needed by all the rest. Imagine the British Empire, pre-1945, as a structure the same size of america. But when you look at it, all it is is a small well formed pyramid at the top of a conical shaped pile of rubble. Britain was so keen on being on top of all these decapitated bases that they did not realise how precarious their position really was. At the end of WW1 america came to the negotiation table at Versailles and talked about spreading democracy/americanisation, especially to Eastern europe. This didnt even occur to Britain or France. History went on to repeat itself. Germany rose, war ravaged europe. Maybe the germans hoped britain would stand with them against russia and america, but they didnt understand the bond between the anglos was stronger than whatever kind of partnership the germans were offering. But at the end of WW2 it was obvious the americans were here to stay and had invaded, as i pointed out earlier. It was completely untenable for britain to maintain an empire and yet be submissive to america. Something had to give. Britain cut the empire she had sucked dry lose. That small fairly well formed pyramid (the island known as Britain) then found itself stuck to the side of the american super structure, albeit at a funny and sometimes uncomfortable angle. Like most things, if you leave it out in the sun, it melts together. What were seeing is the absorption of britain by the strengthening of what they have in common and the american way becoming the norm in all other spheres of life.

EDIT: If you meant 'where is america's investment in the uk?', then it is on a personal and business level rather than government one. The US govt doesnt need to invest in army/civil service/transport here because the brits try their hardest to keep up with them. Plenty of american citizens and businesses invest in or are shareholders of major parts of the private industry here.

As for cultural hegemony, at present this seems limited to McD's, Burgerking and Starbucks type joints. Okay so we now have 'malls' and American fashion is quite popular including slang (notice idiot urban youth calling the filth 'feds' these days!). The ideal of 'The American Dream' still seems the polar opposite to the Brit scheme of things though.

This week Prince William was somewhere upside down, opening a 'Supreme Court'. The British 'Supreme Court' has been open a number of months now. Where did that idea come from? It's not as obvious or as in your face as we would have done it, but that's how these people do it. Too much too soon just shocks the system.

Okay things are dumbing down here, but I don't know if the Yanks are responsible for that?

Some of them are. Especially those in big business. But there is also many englishmen who see america and britain as one so they provide a similar force for change from the inside rather than the outside.

Truth is, I've heard that the US is much less racist and places less obstacles to hard workers than in the UK 'system', so f**k that, maybe Americanisation is a potentially good thing here!!

Nearly every white american I know has talked about moving into neighbourhoods where they will be with people of the same mind. Many sikhs obviously know whats good for them and gravitate towards progressive communities rather than the bible-bashing-mel-gibson-loving areas. In britain we are all on top of each other, unless you like living out in the country. We cant all just move to a nice progressive area, so there is more social collision. If by 'americanisation' you mean we stick all the natives on a reservation in wales, then i think you might really be onto a good thing lol.

There is a book called Hitler's English Inspirers by Manuel Sarkisyanz which tells how Hitler was a great admirer of England and that he attempted to model Germany's society and empire on it. He was in awe of conventional Englishmen like Churchill and Kipling (rather than just fringe "Fascists") and endeavoured to emulate the cruel, darwinian and white supremacist English Public School system, something that English headmasters took a friendly interest in. I read elsewhere that Hitler wanted educational institutions that moulded students into what he described as "brutal, domineering, fearless, cruel youth" and "beasts of prey". England also provided the inspiration for his policies towards non-Teutons. The mainstream English were very clear on how they had the right to exterminate other races and take over their native lands and this inspired Hitler's ideas for Europe and the USSR. He would refer to conquered areas of the USSR as "our India" (another of Sarkisyanz's books is called From Imperialism to Fascism: Why Hitler's "India" was to be Russia.) It also explains why East Indians were not genocided and replaced like the natives in USA/Canada/Aus/NZ.

This is why i found Mein Kampf so fascinating - it was like looking into the mind of a white imperialist, with no bs or attempt to hide what they meant with a smokescreen. The british had a lot in common with germans, but they would never have let anything like this be published by an english author as it is so open and honest. The brits are a lot better at hiding their intentions and reasons for doing things. Nowadays most modern britons try to create an image of britain defending democracy, liberty etc. against german fanaticism. This is a myth. The brits are just spewing out the things the americans said. If you look at british propaganda and newspapers during the war, they are similar to the germans. For example in a german poster you will see a nordic type standing tall with others defending the fatherland. In a british poster it will be a black haired, blue eyed englishman standing next to a sandy haired ANZAC, a grinning south african, a smirking canadian and possibly a sikh or black person, all of them staring forward with an union jack above them. British papers were all talk of empire joining together fighting naughty germans who did not know their place in the world. It was like they were saying 'Look, all the darkies and non-english speaking people know that we should rule them, but these bloody huns need another thrashing to get the message'. American papers on the other hand were full of all the liberty, democracy, freedom spin. And the yanks were kind of right - they were finishing off european colonialism, with a little help from the locals.

Anyway back to the school thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wewelsburg

One of the notorious SS castles. These places took the best and most able young germans in order to train them for leadership. The kids chosen were not allowed to refuse going to the castles. Quite a few were killed due to the strictness of training and accidents during live fire exercises. Yep, 11-18 year olds with real guns firing real ammo. A notch up from Eton eh?

Having said that, the americans also have a system in place very similar to Britain when it comes to elitist education establishments. It's served them pretty well so far. Something the Khalsa may need to emulate one day? Who knows.

Edited by HSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why i found Mein Kampf so fascinating - it was like looking into the mind of a white imperialist, with no bs or attempt to hide what they meant with a smokescreen. The british had a lot in common with germans, but they would never have let anything like this be published by an english author as it is so open and honest. The brits are a lot better at hiding their intentions and reasons for doing things. Nowadays most modern britons try to create an image of britain defending democracy, liberty etc. against german fanaticism. This is a myth.

Two interesting citation from Mein Kampf about the British:

"No nation prepared the way for its commercial conquests more brutally than England did by means of the sword, and no other nation has defended such conquests more ruthlessly."

"Such a falsification, however, served the purpose of those who had fabricated it. This caricature of the Englishman, though false, could be used to prove the possibility of conquering the world peacefully by commercial means. Where the Englishman succeeded we should also succeed. Our far greater honesty and our freedom from that specifically English ‘perfidy’ would be assets on our side. Thereby it was hoped that the sympathy of the smaller nations and the confidence of the greater nations could be gained more easily."

The British did a nice job of projecting themselves as jolly good fellows who just sip tea and be eccentric and their crimes as unintentional accidents that were not connected to each other and had no doctrinal basis.

Brits and Germans did indeed have a great deal in common with each other. The Germans regarded Britain as the exemplar of success because of their doctrine of eliminating 'uncivilised' races who stood in the way of 'progress'. They kept their admiration of British imperial achivements discreet in the 1930s so as not to reveal their ambitions. But during this time they were Anglicizing their society and would later apply British methods in their imperial expansion. The Reich's press carried articles about British statesmen key to expanding the empire and episodes from British imperial history (but no other country's) to educate Germans, for example the Battle of Plassey, and the Fashoda Crisis with France in 1898 where the British were described as "brutal". When the Nazis took control of the Czech Republic in 1939 they made it into a protectorate rather than annexing it outright, something that Germany had never done before. The Czech government remained and President Hacha continued in office. However the country was incorporated into the German Reich and was subject to German laws and people protesting against occupation were shot and their leaders were put into concentration camps and executed. This was a deliberate copy of British rule in the Princely states in India where the maharajas were still on the throne but the British were the real rulers. During the Nazi era Anglo countries were doing the same things as them. Read this book. Native women were being sterilised in Canada and America at the time and as late as in the 1970s.

"British Columbia enacted an identical law in 1933, a year before the Nazi government in Germany did. Royce White Calf, a Lakhota judge at the June, 1998 IHRAAM Tribunal in Vancouver,estimates that nearly one-third of all aboriginal women in Alaska and the western United States were sterilized under such programs by the 1980’s, the frequency of these sterilizations actually increasing after 1970. (Royce White Calf to IHRAAM Tribunal, June 13, 1998)."

HIDDEN FROM HISTORY: The Canadian Holocaust

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/genocide.pdf

Here is a good reference from the book Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography by John Toland:

"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity."

Here's an interesting article about Jesse Owens which tells how Roosevelt refused to shake his hand at the German Olympics because he was afraid that it would cost him white votes in southern states.

Who really snubbed Jesse Owens?

http://www.rediff.com/sports/2008/aug/19flip.htm

And here you can read the forward and introduction from Sarkisyanz's book. Not much but some pretty good info all the same.

http://www.atholbooks.org/inspirers

Edited by Dharma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British did a nice job of projecting themselves as jolly good fellows who just sip tea and be eccentric and their crimes as unintentional accidents that were not connected to each other and had no doctrinal basis.

Our people are still falling for this stuff. Especially ones who get charmed by their smarmy 'higher class' Anglo neighbours/work collegues. A useful trick use by the Anglos (that we should all be aware of) is using class as a shield. So when their own working class animals do effed up stuff, they simply turn up their nose and pretend it is nothing to do with them. Often however, these oiks are actually doing the ground work.

Having said that, the americans also have a system in place very similar to Britain when it comes to elitist education establishments. It's served them pretty well so far. Something the Khalsa may need to emulate one day? Who knows.

I don't know, the discussion of elitism in light of Khalsa values is an interesting one that we need to have. Me with my stupid Singh Sabha influenced Sikhi, still holds to the 'one amongst equals' belief. Nothing more obnoxious and hypocritical than a snobby Singh.

Let me quote Baba Nanak:

ਨੀਚਾ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਨੀਚ ਜਾਤਿ ਨੀਚੀ ਹੂ ਅਤਿ ਨੀਚੁ ॥

नीचा अंदरि नीच जाति नीची हू अति नीचु ॥

Nīcẖā anḏar nīcẖ jāṯ nīcẖī hū aṯ nīcẖ.

Those who are lowest of the low class, the very lowest of the low;

ਨਾਨਕੁ ਤਿਨ ਕੈ ਸੰਗਿ ਸਾਥਿ ਵਡਿਆ ਸਿਉ ਕਿਆ ਰੀਸ ॥

नानकु तिन कै संगि साथि वडिआ सिउ किआ रीस ॥

Nānak ṯin kai sang sāth vadi▫ā si▫o ki▫ā rīs.

Nanak seeks the company of those. Why should he try to compete with the great?

ਜਿਥੈ ਨੀਚ ਸਮਾਲੀਅਨਿ ਤਿਥੈ ਨਦਰਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਬਖਸੀਸ ॥੪॥੩॥

जिथै नीच समालीअनि तिथै नदरि तेरी बखसीस ॥४॥३॥

Jithai nīcẖ samālī▫an ṯithai naḏar ṯerī bakẖsīs. ||4||3||

In that place where the lowly are cared for-there, the Blessings of Your Glance of Grace rain down. ||4||3||

SGGS Ji, page 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our people are still falling for this stuff. Especially ones who get charmed by their smarmy 'higher class' Anglo neighbours/work collegues. A useful trick use by the Anglos (that we should all be aware of) is using class as a shield. So when their own working class animals do effed up stuff, they simply turn up their nose and pretend it is nothing to do with them. Often however, these oiks are actually doing the ground work.

Yep. The musis and hindoos do the same thing with their own little spin. They keep on doing it because they know they can get away with it.

Another trick the 'higher class' use is of acceptance. They deliberately make people feel like outsiders, so that when a person becomes useful for something they can offer them equality in return for whatever they need. Usually its turning against their own or fighting another group of people. We sikhs have fallen for this god knows how many times. And we will keep on falling for it as long as their are traitors and coconuts in our nation.

I don't know, the discussion of elitism in light of Khalsa values is an interesting one that we need to have. Me with my stupid Singh Sabha influenced Sikhi, still holds to the 'one amongst equals' belief. Nothing more obnoxious and hypocritical than a snobby Singh.

Lol, i know. But snobby singhs arent only going to spring up because of our system. There are a few snobby sanatan elitists on here, and even one PC-loving snob who likes to cause problems. Fire can only be fought with fire. Sikh schools are good as they create a sense of belonging, but it still needs to go further. If we have our own country, regardless of Khalsa ideals of equality, we will need to provide the brightest youth with a better education than those who are only going to be doing menial jobs. Otherwise our politicians/army commandeers/captains of industry will be idiots who achieved their status through the age old punjabi practice of nespotism. Even on a smaller scale in the diaspora communities, we need to get the best to the right places at the head of our communities. But we cant. From the gurudwara committee to the sikh society of a university, it can be seen that we rely on leaders who have no obvious flair. Intelligence, experience or competence are not really something we ask for or expect in our leaders. The people who want to be leaders dont seem to want to have any of those either. Which is fine if everyone else was as stupid as we sikhs are, but they arent. They are sly, sophisticated and cruel but keep this covered with a screen of apathy or placating us with sweet words or quasi-ignorance. Try explaining all this to your average sikh of average intelligence and they wont believe you. They have their own preconceptions that they dont want destroyed as it will make them feel stupid. It takes a bigger and better person to understand the kind of things discussed here. It will take an even cleverer person to then use this and act on it for the benefit of our nation. Hope that's enough to convince people the need for a new structure if we want things to change.

Edited by HSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our people are still falling for this stuff. Especially ones who get charmed by their smarmy 'higher class' Anglo neighbours/work collegues. A useful trick use by the Anglos (that we should all be aware of) is using class as a shield. So when their own working class animals do effed up stuff, they simply turn up their nose and pretend it is nothing to do with them. Often however, these oiks are actually doing the ground work.

You are right, it is one of the tricks. Only a minority of racists are overt and visible, most work to enable racism by playing it down or justifying it or blaming the victim, more so in the race law/PC age. Other sly tactics include moral harassment of the victim i.e. constantly finding fault in someone to justify persistent hostility (school and workplace bullying of ethnic minorities is much higher than whites), and also picking individuals or demographic groups off one by one (e.g. much anti-sullah sentiment these days), which is a bit like a big cat separating easy prey from the herd.

Note this comment by a trainee in The Secret Policeman documentary. His town is probably a typical UK one and I'd be surprised if the higher classes significantly differ from the working classes.

Daley: "Isn’t that what the BNP are now trying to do?

PC Rob Pulling: "Exactly. I’m not ******* out of place, I’m not ******* one in a million I am the majority and I think like the majority of my town.

Edited by Dharma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have our own country, regardless of Khalsa ideals of equality, we will need to provide the brightest youth with a better education than those who are only going to be doing menial jobs. Otherwise our politicians/army commandeers/captains of industry will be idiots who achieved their status through the age old punjabi practice of nespotism.

This nepotism is what currently bhund maars us as a quom. I would go as far as to say that a meritocracy is inherent in Khalsacentric ideology. When our community applied this during the first 3/4 of 1700s, our forefathers did miracles.

We need to push a Khalsa version of the American dream type thing within our society instead of running around trying to pull each other down over stupid things like caste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his nepotism is what currently bhund maars us as a quom. I would go as far as to say that a meritocracy is inherent in Khalsacentric ideology. When our community applied this during the first 3/4 of 1700s, our forefathers did miracles.

With all the killing going on back then, there was no place for nepotism. It was a lot easier to move up with the right skills. Nowadays we are completely out of it.

We need to push a Khalsa version of the American dream type thing within our society instead of running around trying to pull each other down over stupid things like caste.

Yup. We need a political ideology to reflect Gurbani, but an ideology that actually has teeth in this modern world. That needs good writers, orators and thinkers, which is before we even get to the 'heavy side'. So who's going to come up with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji 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...
×
×
  • Create New...