reading about christian missionaries, i thoguht to myself, why do these hindus in this case convert to christianity? why ditch your own faith, much older than theirs, for theirs. its a text, written by ancestors, either yours, or theirs. you have your beliefs intact, they exist in your culture. yet, people will drop their own beliefs and adopt those of their neighbor for what? why would they refuse the teachings of their parents for those of outsiders? those outsiders have the same script passed down thruogh the ages style philosophy you do. why do you drop your own direct ties for something that will never truely be yours. you arent the people of jerusalem. nor are yoru ancestors. why follow the teachings and beliefs of those people. beliefs that have nothing to do with your ancestors. the blood that flows through your veins has 7,500 generations of man in it. of those, none were christian, if you're a purebred hindu, sikh, and the like. sikhs rarely go out into the world and try to convert others. likewise, sikhs rarely get converted. however it does happen. sikhs are lured away to the promise of the larger christian church. its like joining a bigger company. buying out the mom and pops. but its a monopoly that has far reaching effect. noone today has coined the major religions. these are texts that have influenced followers for generations, thousands of years in some cases, and the arrangement of the world today is largely to do with the influence those texts had on their followers.
its crazy how this shit went down. these people were following their own religions, then the christians would come in, guns in hand, and would give them the choice. life in the christian world, or death as a whatever you began life as. whatever you were taught by your parents. the christians offer this temptation, scorn your own father and mother, and join the mindless hoard of christians. i wonder if we could call christians the new pagan hoards.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
"better to be around your own kind"
i was recently having a conversation with anita my girlfriend and we were speaking about the recent rash of people my parents had been hiring to come over to the house and do various things, first the lawn mowers, then the guy who sprayed all the lawn with chemicals, then the guy who got hired to fix the dish washer. all this going on, plus the mail man. anyhow all these peoplwe were white skinned, had a bit of a hostile posture and demeanor, both anita my white skinned girlfriend and i brown skinned noticed the same thing. these were people whom i and she had avoided growing up, the worst of the worst, the people who were so bad that you just instinctively knew to avoid them. however in this weird twist of fate, now my parents pay for their bread.
we're meant to sit in our basements while they roam free in our kitchens and yards, and i thought it was a strange thing to have such a situation be the case. i really dont think that these people really have any idea about what they do. they seem to just walk around angrily with this sort of paranoia and tenseness that you know is induced y the knowledge that brown skinned people live here. it isnt just brown skinned people, but a brown skinned man with a beard and a turban! such a fearful thing this must be to these white skinned simpletons. im not saying i have anything against white skinned people, but i think thebest way to refer to them is perhaps white skinned people instead of just calling them whites. but really they're more pink skinned, or creamish colored, than they are white. after all white is the absense of all color, and black is the existence of all of them. a black man is more brownish in skin tone, while a white woman is more pinkish reddish and cream colored in their skin tone. the words black and white are exaggerations, ones that lend to a tense world view, one im not really interested in entertaining.
im more of a relaxed guy, and as such like a relaxed point of view regarding the earth, life, and such. and when it comes to skin color, there's nothing right about calling someone BLACK. there is absolutely nobody who blends into the darkness of the night. the word itself is a lie. those people do not have black colored skin. ask any art teacher to pull out the color chart. refer if you like but common sense should hopefully draw you to the conclusion that indeed black people are mislabled and should be labeled dark-brown. and white people should be labeled creme-pink-red. indians are more brown-creme. at least i am.
another thing i want to deconstruct is the word indian. i am not of india. never born there, haven't lived there, i have no allegiance to the government of the region. whilst my parents lives began in those lands, my own did not. in fact i began life in wales in the united kingdom. if someone is going to label me as a countryman of some place, it should be a welshman. country ties dont extend beyond your birthday. they dont precede you. if you are born in a land, that land is your birth place. no assumption of my intentions, grey matter, the like, based upon my skin tone, will ever draw you to the point where you really have a good time with it.
i met an english woman yesterday, who actually said to me, yeah i imagine you have a hard time with it. i said yea, at least when she was speaking about the whole indian versus white situation in dayton. but yeah. thats the sort of thing that goes on. i personally hate the word indian. i have no tie to the country india. i have nothing to it at all. beyond forced-upon temple visits and language lessons, food tastings and cultural-gatherings, i am no more indian than any other person whose mildly tuned into the pop-culture-media-machine.
but back to the topic at hand, "your own kind" is something i find absolutely terrible. first of all is there really and kind which we cna call oru own. i mena yes perhaps ideologically we can. but physically, using the skin tone as a judge of character, is such a terribly inaccurate measure, and the things imposed upon peoples because of their skin tone are terrible institutions. but then i was thinking that perhaps if we even idenitified by our differences on an intellectual level, yes, the lines would be drawn in a color free manner, but the problems would still exist, albiet in a mixed skin mehtod but still a fight for the people to fight. something where sides would exist, opposed to one another. i'd rather break free of the system of infighting that's been imbued into the very fabric of humanity, looking back at man's recorded history, tale upon tale of conquest, assimilation, destruction, oppression, rebellion, overthrowings and independances, death and decay, explotion, stagnation, then overthrowals and renaissances. such a violent past man has behind it, a system of application of ideals over vast populations of people by the hands of few, boiling down to single individuals. imposing the will of one over many is never a good thing, hopefully we'll emerge from all of this wiser and more advanced in the future.
we're meant to sit in our basements while they roam free in our kitchens and yards, and i thought it was a strange thing to have such a situation be the case. i really dont think that these people really have any idea about what they do. they seem to just walk around angrily with this sort of paranoia and tenseness that you know is induced y the knowledge that brown skinned people live here. it isnt just brown skinned people, but a brown skinned man with a beard and a turban! such a fearful thing this must be to these white skinned simpletons. im not saying i have anything against white skinned people, but i think thebest way to refer to them is perhaps white skinned people instead of just calling them whites. but really they're more pink skinned, or creamish colored, than they are white. after all white is the absense of all color, and black is the existence of all of them. a black man is more brownish in skin tone, while a white woman is more pinkish reddish and cream colored in their skin tone. the words black and white are exaggerations, ones that lend to a tense world view, one im not really interested in entertaining.
im more of a relaxed guy, and as such like a relaxed point of view regarding the earth, life, and such. and when it comes to skin color, there's nothing right about calling someone BLACK. there is absolutely nobody who blends into the darkness of the night. the word itself is a lie. those people do not have black colored skin. ask any art teacher to pull out the color chart. refer if you like but common sense should hopefully draw you to the conclusion that indeed black people are mislabled and should be labeled dark-brown. and white people should be labeled creme-pink-red. indians are more brown-creme. at least i am.
another thing i want to deconstruct is the word indian. i am not of india. never born there, haven't lived there, i have no allegiance to the government of the region. whilst my parents lives began in those lands, my own did not. in fact i began life in wales in the united kingdom. if someone is going to label me as a countryman of some place, it should be a welshman. country ties dont extend beyond your birthday. they dont precede you. if you are born in a land, that land is your birth place. no assumption of my intentions, grey matter, the like, based upon my skin tone, will ever draw you to the point where you really have a good time with it.
i met an english woman yesterday, who actually said to me, yeah i imagine you have a hard time with it. i said yea, at least when she was speaking about the whole indian versus white situation in dayton. but yeah. thats the sort of thing that goes on. i personally hate the word indian. i have no tie to the country india. i have nothing to it at all. beyond forced-upon temple visits and language lessons, food tastings and cultural-gatherings, i am no more indian than any other person whose mildly tuned into the pop-culture-media-machine.
but back to the topic at hand, "your own kind" is something i find absolutely terrible. first of all is there really and kind which we cna call oru own. i mena yes perhaps ideologically we can. but physically, using the skin tone as a judge of character, is such a terribly inaccurate measure, and the things imposed upon peoples because of their skin tone are terrible institutions. but then i was thinking that perhaps if we even idenitified by our differences on an intellectual level, yes, the lines would be drawn in a color free manner, but the problems would still exist, albiet in a mixed skin mehtod but still a fight for the people to fight. something where sides would exist, opposed to one another. i'd rather break free of the system of infighting that's been imbued into the very fabric of humanity, looking back at man's recorded history, tale upon tale of conquest, assimilation, destruction, oppression, rebellion, overthrowings and independances, death and decay, explotion, stagnation, then overthrowals and renaissances. such a violent past man has behind it, a system of application of ideals over vast populations of people by the hands of few, boiling down to single individuals. imposing the will of one over many is never a good thing, hopefully we'll emerge from all of this wiser and more advanced in the future.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
84
it's crazy how little sikhs do about the 1984 attacks. also it seems like the sikh community is literally a headless beast. even in india, there is no leadership, and its a shame. the prime central location for the people of sikhism, was attacked by military forces and yet you hardly hear much of it in the gurudwaras in chicago and ohio.
i think that sikhs really dont do a good job of having really any kind of like sense of religion and community. we dont really have a dialogue for anything about anything. its all crap really. and the requirements of the turban are crazy. i dont understand why sikhs perform rituals when nanak said rituals were wrong. that was the very reason for the creation of sikhism. instead they go and cover there head when in the presence of a book, knelt to like an idol. this is far removed from the original teachings of nanak. certainly these are more worshippers of nanak than practitioners of his beliefs. they kneel to him like he is god instead of letting themselves learn his teachings. children are brought into the temples not knowing the language of the text and are forced to sit and listen to unknown tongues and then sit and eat food. it doesnt make any sense to those children nor will that be resolved by watchful adults. they're allowed to continue unknowning and they will never really know anything about the religion. these kinds of things are crazy and certainly they shouldn't really be the modus opperandi for gurudwara's nationwide.
also another problem is the turban issue and its PR issues and legal conflicts. as well as the kirpan. police entered a house and upon seeing the kirpan at a womans side restrained her and arrested her took her to the station for questioning. only, she was a resident of that house and her brother had called in a burgalery. it was an embaressing situation and i don't really feel it can really be used as a rightful gague of the legal system in america. these agents of the law used force against innocent citizens and this is wrong.
i think that sikhs really dont do a good job of having really any kind of like sense of religion and community. we dont really have a dialogue for anything about anything. its all crap really. and the requirements of the turban are crazy. i dont understand why sikhs perform rituals when nanak said rituals were wrong. that was the very reason for the creation of sikhism. instead they go and cover there head when in the presence of a book, knelt to like an idol. this is far removed from the original teachings of nanak. certainly these are more worshippers of nanak than practitioners of his beliefs. they kneel to him like he is god instead of letting themselves learn his teachings. children are brought into the temples not knowing the language of the text and are forced to sit and listen to unknown tongues and then sit and eat food. it doesnt make any sense to those children nor will that be resolved by watchful adults. they're allowed to continue unknowning and they will never really know anything about the religion. these kinds of things are crazy and certainly they shouldn't really be the modus opperandi for gurudwara's nationwide.
also another problem is the turban issue and its PR issues and legal conflicts. as well as the kirpan. police entered a house and upon seeing the kirpan at a womans side restrained her and arrested her took her to the station for questioning. only, she was a resident of that house and her brother had called in a burgalery. it was an embaressing situation and i don't really feel it can really be used as a rightful gague of the legal system in america. these agents of the law used force against innocent citizens and this is wrong.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
there was like this fuckin set of videos i watched.
one was on 1984, the way that the indian army came in, killed sikhs. the US senate has footage of people speakin and shit. its fuckin crazy. dead indians. like i wonder if there's sikhs out there who hate hindus for the way they were well more or less massacred by them. crazy shit.
one was on 1984, the way that the indian army came in, killed sikhs. the US senate has footage of people speakin and shit. its fuckin crazy. dead indians. like i wonder if there's sikhs out there who hate hindus for the way they were well more or less massacred by them. crazy shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)