I saw a lot of BS on the net and blogs related the Bruce Allen rant on CKNW and felt I had to come up for some air and put out a blog to rebuff the fool. I'll be back from time to time, in the meantime and in between time, check out the updated "sikh blogs by 'k'" from the right panel.
Here's a back and forth I had on the Covenant blog that encapsulates the argument that I make against Bruce Allen and his kind of commentator.
"Kaptaan said...
"play by the rules" is such a load of tripe. Bruce Allen has got it all wrong. Pointing to Sikhs, as an example of 'immigrants' seeking accommodations, etc.. is ridiculous.
Canadians, born and raised in Canada, who have their own religious beliefs ARE playing by the rules, when they demand all the rights guaranteed under the charter. Most Sikhs in BC are BORN in Canada, as Canadians.
Canada is our homeland. Like it or lump it. We don't want accommodation from "you". We are the 'you'. Sikhs aren't "johnny come latelies" to the country. We built the province of BC with blood, sweat and tears (along with our chinese friends). Every small town in BC contains Sikhs and a Sikh community. It's time you and your ilk examined the facts.
Anglos didn't want to integrate/ assimilate Sikhs into society in the early 1900's, so don't be surprised if Sikhs took them at their word and NOW would rather fully express themselves as Sikhs (and Sikh Canadians at that) today.
Thu Sep 27, 07:55:00 AM PDT
truepeers said...
kaptaan says playing by the rules is a load of tripe; then he says Sikhs do play by the rules. He says we are you, but then he says we would rather express ourselves as Sikhs.
It's not so much that I think he's wrong. It's just that his argument is not very coherent. The contradictions are not important and don't have to be resolved. What's important is that We are victimizing Him. And that's the problem with "multiculturalism". It doesn't tell us how we can rule ourselves together, instead of being ruled by some higher righteousness of the kind that kaptaan seems to be struggling to articulate.
What I think kaptaan is really saying is that Sikhs have a right to victim status and so no one else has a right to argue how Sikhs and all other Canadians should behave together. kaptaan says Sikhs and Chinese built BC, but for some reason he thinks "Anglos" (eventhough he writes in English himself - does he really mean whites?) are still in charge and victimizing those who are doing the work. But aren't those in charge the real builders?
One could see Bruce Allen as someone who is actually taking the right of Sikhs to be Canadians seriously. It is the multiculturalist "Anglo" elites who must patronize the Sikhs, because multiculti politics is a politics of patron-client relationships - and having seen how this works from inside the Liberal party, I can tell you there are all kinds of individual Sikhs with ambition to join the "Anglo" elite, pretending to speak for all Sikhs in British Columbia, and pretending to be able to deliver lots of votes.
Maybe Bruce Allen, in his not very intellectually or politically astute way, is saying, wouldn't it be better if you were treated as free individuals, like any other free individuals, and not as a tribe to be manipulated by your "leaders" and their multiculti-speaking "Anglo" friends en masse? The real power in the Liberal party in British Columbia is still overwhelmingly white and English speaking. And they're the ones promoting "multiculturalism". It serves their political interests.
Thu Sep 27, 10:53:00 AM PDT
Kaptaan said...
Let me break it down for you truepeers.
1. When I said the following: ""play by the rules" is such a load of tripe... Most Sikhs in BC are BORN in Canada, as Canadians."
What I mean by this is that to tell Sikhs to "play by the rules" doesn't make sense because Sikhs in BC, by and large, are Canadians so they are already, defacto, playing by the rules. Bruce doesn't realize, that Sikhs didn't come form "somewhere else" so they don't have any other place to go called "home" as Bruce said, because (drum roll please) BC is HOME.
2. When I said the following: "Canada is our homeland. Like it or lump it... It's time you and your ilk examined the facts.
What I meant is that, extending point 1, trying to build an 'us' versus 'them' meaning 'Canadians' versus 'immigrants' doesn't work with Sikhs, because Sikhs are the 'us' because Sikhs are in fact, born in Canada British Columbians. So when I said we are the 'you', it means we ARE BRITISH COLUMBIAN (Canadians).
3. When I wrote the following: "Anglos didn't want to integrate/ assimilate Sikhs into society in the early 1900's, so don't be surprised if Sikhs took them at their word and NOW would rather fully express themselves as Sikhs (and Sikh Canadians at that) today."
What I meant was that as of now, for Sikhs in BC, the prevailing feeling is that not only are we Canadian, but as Canadians, it is OUR prerogative to decide what that means for us, and what it means is that we want to assert our Sikh identity and be SIKH Canadians (British Columbians) as opposed to what Anglos would like us to be today which is just plain Canadian.
4. When you write, "What's important is that We are victimizing Him. And that's the problem with "multiculturalism"... struggling to articulate."
You are mistaken. I don't feel victimized. I am, however, unwilling to [listen to] anyone [lecture me], especially Bruce Allen, tell me what I can and can't do in Canada. OR How I should behave or not behave in this country (as long as that behaviour is lawful).
5. When you write, "What I think kaptaan is really saying is that Sikhs have a right to victim status and so no one else has a right to argue how Sikhs and all other Canadians should behave together... But aren't those in charge the real builders?
NO. That is incorrect. I don't believe Sikhs or anyone else has a right to victim status. Sikhs only want the full protection and freedoms that extend from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
6. You write, "One could see Bruce Allen as someone who is actually taking the right of Sikhs to be Canadians seriously..."
I suppose someone might see that, however, I see Bruce Allen as someone who just doesn't like the fact that Sikhs and other visible minorities are living large in Canada. I see Bruce Allen as someone who doesn't like the fact that the visage of Canada has changed permanently. I see Bruce Allen as someone who is wondering why it is that Sikhs after having been in Canada for over 100 years in large numbers, don't see the need to adopt the ways of the original Anglo descent Canadians.
7. You write, "Maybe Bruce Allen, in his not very intellectually or politically astute way, is saying, wouldn't it be better if you were treated as free individuals, like any other free individuals, and not as a tribe to be manipulated by your "leaders" and their multiculti-speaking "Anglo" friends en masse?..."
Perhaps I see economies of scale in having many Sikhs come together for a common interest, much in the same way, that many people with strong commonalities and interests have come together in the past. For example, women who advocated for the right to vote and equality.
Thu Sep 27, 07:46:00 PM PDT "
Here's a back and forth I had on the Covenant blog that encapsulates the argument that I make against Bruce Allen and his kind of commentator.
"Kaptaan said...
"play by the rules" is such a load of tripe. Bruce Allen has got it all wrong. Pointing to Sikhs, as an example of 'immigrants' seeking accommodations, etc.. is ridiculous.
Canadians, born and raised in Canada, who have their own religious beliefs ARE playing by the rules, when they demand all the rights guaranteed under the charter. Most Sikhs in BC are BORN in Canada, as Canadians.
Canada is our homeland. Like it or lump it. We don't want accommodation from "you". We are the 'you'. Sikhs aren't "johnny come latelies" to the country. We built the province of BC with blood, sweat and tears (along with our chinese friends). Every small town in BC contains Sikhs and a Sikh community. It's time you and your ilk examined the facts.
Anglos didn't want to integrate/ assimilate Sikhs into society in the early 1900's, so don't be surprised if Sikhs took them at their word and NOW would rather fully express themselves as Sikhs (and Sikh Canadians at that) today.
Thu Sep 27, 07:55:00 AM PDT
truepeers said...
kaptaan says playing by the rules is a load of tripe; then he says Sikhs do play by the rules. He says we are you, but then he says we would rather express ourselves as Sikhs.
It's not so much that I think he's wrong. It's just that his argument is not very coherent. The contradictions are not important and don't have to be resolved. What's important is that We are victimizing Him. And that's the problem with "multiculturalism". It doesn't tell us how we can rule ourselves together, instead of being ruled by some higher righteousness of the kind that kaptaan seems to be struggling to articulate.
What I think kaptaan is really saying is that Sikhs have a right to victim status and so no one else has a right to argue how Sikhs and all other Canadians should behave together. kaptaan says Sikhs and Chinese built BC, but for some reason he thinks "Anglos" (eventhough he writes in English himself - does he really mean whites?) are still in charge and victimizing those who are doing the work. But aren't those in charge the real builders?
One could see Bruce Allen as someone who is actually taking the right of Sikhs to be Canadians seriously. It is the multiculturalist "Anglo" elites who must patronize the Sikhs, because multiculti politics is a politics of patron-client relationships - and having seen how this works from inside the Liberal party, I can tell you there are all kinds of individual Sikhs with ambition to join the "Anglo" elite, pretending to speak for all Sikhs in British Columbia, and pretending to be able to deliver lots of votes.
Maybe Bruce Allen, in his not very intellectually or politically astute way, is saying, wouldn't it be better if you were treated as free individuals, like any other free individuals, and not as a tribe to be manipulated by your "leaders" and their multiculti-speaking "Anglo" friends en masse? The real power in the Liberal party in British Columbia is still overwhelmingly white and English speaking. And they're the ones promoting "multiculturalism". It serves their political interests.
Thu Sep 27, 10:53:00 AM PDT
Kaptaan said...
Let me break it down for you truepeers.
1. When I said the following: ""play by the rules" is such a load of tripe... Most Sikhs in BC are BORN in Canada, as Canadians."
What I mean by this is that to tell Sikhs to "play by the rules" doesn't make sense because Sikhs in BC, by and large, are Canadians so they are already, defacto, playing by the rules. Bruce doesn't realize, that Sikhs didn't come form "somewhere else" so they don't have any other place to go called "home" as Bruce said, because (drum roll please) BC is HOME.
2. When I said the following: "Canada is our homeland. Like it or lump it... It's time you and your ilk examined the facts.
What I meant is that, extending point 1, trying to build an 'us' versus 'them' meaning 'Canadians' versus 'immigrants' doesn't work with Sikhs, because Sikhs are the 'us' because Sikhs are in fact, born in Canada British Columbians. So when I said we are the 'you', it means we ARE BRITISH COLUMBIAN (Canadians).
3. When I wrote the following: "Anglos didn't want to integrate/ assimilate Sikhs into society in the early 1900's, so don't be surprised if Sikhs took them at their word and NOW would rather fully express themselves as Sikhs (and Sikh Canadians at that) today."
What I meant was that as of now, for Sikhs in BC, the prevailing feeling is that not only are we Canadian, but as Canadians, it is OUR prerogative to decide what that means for us, and what it means is that we want to assert our Sikh identity and be SIKH Canadians (British Columbians) as opposed to what Anglos would like us to be today which is just plain Canadian.
4. When you write, "What's important is that We are victimizing Him. And that's the problem with "multiculturalism"... struggling to articulate."
You are mistaken. I don't feel victimized. I am, however, unwilling to [listen to] anyone [lecture me], especially Bruce Allen, tell me what I can and can't do in Canada. OR How I should behave or not behave in this country (as long as that behaviour is lawful).
5. When you write, "What I think kaptaan is really saying is that Sikhs have a right to victim status and so no one else has a right to argue how Sikhs and all other Canadians should behave together... But aren't those in charge the real builders?
NO. That is incorrect. I don't believe Sikhs or anyone else has a right to victim status. Sikhs only want the full protection and freedoms that extend from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
6. You write, "One could see Bruce Allen as someone who is actually taking the right of Sikhs to be Canadians seriously..."
I suppose someone might see that, however, I see Bruce Allen as someone who just doesn't like the fact that Sikhs and other visible minorities are living large in Canada. I see Bruce Allen as someone who doesn't like the fact that the visage of Canada has changed permanently. I see Bruce Allen as someone who is wondering why it is that Sikhs after having been in Canada for over 100 years in large numbers, don't see the need to adopt the ways of the original Anglo descent Canadians.
7. You write, "Maybe Bruce Allen, in his not very intellectually or politically astute way, is saying, wouldn't it be better if you were treated as free individuals, like any other free individuals, and not as a tribe to be manipulated by your "leaders" and their multiculti-speaking "Anglo" friends en masse?..."
Perhaps I see economies of scale in having many Sikhs come together for a common interest, much in the same way, that many people with strong commonalities and interests have come together in the past. For example, women who advocated for the right to vote and equality.
Thu Sep 27, 07:46:00 PM PDT "
Powered by ScribeFire.
