Ooooooohhhhhhh it's cuz they were *perhaps* mistaken for muslims!
Well in that case, of course! You were totally not at all weird or out of bounds at all!
ETA: it's not that it's offensive. It's that its WEIRD.
Tho the fact that you did it because he is apparently mistaken for Muslim all the time is extra adorable.
Huh? Are you arguing that American Sikhs have not been targeted since 9/11 because ignorant people mistake them for Muslims? That's a pretty well-established fact.
I didn't say that *he* is mistaken for being Muslim all the time (although I wouldn't be surprised even with the large Sikh population in the area), I said that Sikhs as a group have faced extra violence and hatred because of being mistaken for Muslims. However, even if they have been targeted the past 11 years because people hate Sikhs, that is still a tragedy.
It's weird. I'm sorry; I think it's weird to approach a stranger and say this. I think it's nice you wanted to reach out, but given your reaction here I sort of wonder what your motivation was. I'm glad the guy was nice about it, but you have to admit, this could have gone really badly.
Ah yes, because Sikhs are known for being violent and judgemental, who knows what he could have done. 8-D
LOL, so you think random people being gunned down by a crazy person in a movie theatre is the same thing as an act of domestic terrorism where people were targeted specifically because of their religion are the same? And I am the insensitive one? LOL, yea okay.
So I also think your comment was odd. Generally people express condolences to somebody they know, or at least know that the person they are expressing them to knows the victim(s). It's different to acknowledge a tragedy like this to somebody who may be affiliated with a group that was targeted. It sort of comes off as insincere, even though your intentions were nothing but good.
Also, you seem to be stuck on the fact that the condolences were appropriate because this was "domestic terrorism" (as labeled only by local authorities thus far). Domestic terrorism is not necessarily defined by a like-group of individuals being targeted. The definition is really based on the motive. What you describe above is likely a "hate crime" - but we don't know that the shooter's motive involved trying to further a political or social cause (which is the US government's definition). As a matter of fact, we don't know that there wasn't some political, or more likely social reason, behind the Aurora shooting. It doesn't not matter that the folks in the movie theater were "random" and not made-up of one ethnic or religious group. It appears that you don't know what domestic terrorism is, so how can you use it to justify what you did, but then tell other posters that the cases they are comparing it to are any different?
You honestly think it's bizarre that people might find it slightly weird that you approached a Sikh stranger to express sympathy for a shooting at a temple?
I get where you were coming from and I think your motivations were nice, but you can't seriously think that people thinking this is a little strange is "bizarre."
ETA: You don't know WHAT he could have done. You don't know if he may have been terribly offended, or angry, or what.
Well, living in an area with a large number of Sikhs, I was comfortable knowing he wasn't going to be angry or offended. But there I go stereotyping them again as compassionate people.
Ooooooohhhhhhh it's cuz they were *perhaps* mistaken for muslims!
Well in that case, of course! You were totally not at all weird or out of bounds at all!
ETA: it's not that it's offensive. It's that its WEIRD.
Tho the fact that you did it because he is apparently mistaken for Muslim all the time is extra adorable.
Huh? Are you arguing that American Sikhs have not been targeted since 9/11 because ignorant people mistake them for Muslims? That's a pretty well-established fact.
I didn't say that *he* is mistaken for being Muslim all the time (although I wouldn't be surprised even with the large Sikh population in the area), I said that Sikhs as a group have faced extra violence and hatred because of being mistaken for Muslims. However, even if they have been targeted the past 11 years because people hate Sikhs, that is still a tragedy.
I'm arguing that in this case--the one you feel the need to place on all sikhs--there is as of yet no evidence that it was done because they were mistaken for muslims.
LOL, so you think random people being gunned down by a crazy person in a movie theatre is the same thing as an act of domestic terrorism where people were targeted specifically because of their religion are the same? And I am the insensitive one? LOL, yea okay.
So I also think your comment was odd. Generally people express condolences to somebody they know, or at least know that the person they are expressing them to knows the victim(s). It's different to acknowledge a tragedy like this to somebody who may be affiliated with a group that was targeted. It sort of comes off as insincere, even though your intentions were nothing but good.
Also, you seem to be stuck on the fact that the condolences were appropriate because this was "domestic terrorism" (as labeled only by local authorities thus far). Domestic terrorism is not necessarily defined by a like-group of individuals being targeted. The definition is really based on the motive. What you describe above is likely a "hate crime" - but we don't know that the shooter's motive involved trying to further a political or social cause (which is the US government's definition). As a matter of fact, we don't know that there wasn't some political, or more likely social reason, behind the Aurora shooting. It doesn't not matter that the folks in the movie theater were "random" and not made-up of one ethnic or religious group. It appears that you don't know what domestic terrorism is, so how can you use it to justify what you did, but then tell other posters that the cases they are comparing it to are any different?
Well the shooter is an army vet with likely white supremacist ties, and it seemed pretty clear given the history that the most likely reason this temple was targeted was because of their religion (or whatever the shooter thought their religion was). But perhaps you are correct, I should concentrate that this was a hate crime, one in a long string of hate crimes suffered by this community.
Well, living in an area with a large number of Sikhs, I was comfortable knowing he wasn't going to be angry or offended. But there I go stereotyping them again as compassionate people.
Well... yeah, it is a stereotype to assume he wouldn't be offended or angry.
Buddhists aren't quick to anger, either, but that doesn't mean I feel free to push boundaries with them I wouldn't with other people.
Maybe I live in a different world, but I can't imagine a situation where anyone would be offended by someone expressing sympathy over a hate crime perpetrated against others in their religion, given a history of hate crimes in the last decade.
I think this thread says more about you people than it does about me if you would seriously be angered by this situation. I find it sad, actually.
It's weird. I'm sorry; I think it's weird to approach a stranger and say this. I think it's nice you wanted to reach out, but given your reaction here I sort of wonder what your motivation was. I'm glad the guy was nice about it, but you have to admit, this could have gone really badly.
Ah yes, because Sikhs are known for being violent and judgemental, who knows what he could have done.
But there you go stereotyping again. He is an individual, not the collective representative of the group that you want him to be.
I suppose someone should tell all these people they shouldn't care, and tell the American ambassador not to express solidarity because the Sikhs in India weren't the ones actually shot at.
Meanwhile in India, the birthplace of Sikhism, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he was "shocked and saddened" by the shooting.
"That this senseless act of violence should be targeted at a place of religious worship is particularly painful," Singh, himself a Sikh, said Monday. "India stands in solidarity with all the peace-loving Americans who have condemned this violence."
The country's main Sikh political party, the Shiromani Akali Dal, held a demonstration in New Delhi's embassy district Monday to protest.
"Stop racial attacks on Sikhs," read one of the placards.
In an act of solidarity, U.S. Ambassador Nancy Powell visited a historic Sikh shrine in New Delhi, embassy spokesman Unni Menon said.
I think your heart was in the right place. I really do.
I do also think this is where stereotypes and prejudices are born, by lumping in the individual with the collective whole.
At that, I'm leaving the thread because I don't think it's going to go anywhere. You've dug in too firmly to be able to see the other side. Trust me, I know the feeling.
Maybe I live in a different world, but I can't imagine a situation where anyone would be offended by someone expressing sympathy over a hate crime perpetrated against others in their religion, given a history of hate crimes in the last decade.
I think this thread says more about you people than it does about me if you would seriously be angered by this situation. I find it sad, actually.
Oh please. I wouldn't be angered; but I also wouldn't presume to know how a total stranger would react. I'm giggling at the high-handedness of being sad for all of us, though. Who was it you were calling a self-righteous bitch again? ;P
If it makes me a self-righteous bitch to be sad that some of you live in a world where it's wrong to express sympathy to someone in a group that has just experienced a horrific tragedy and that has a history in the past decade especially of being targeted, then I'm happy to be called that. I'll live in my self-righteous world where humans are generally kind and react positively to concern from other people (and where exactly that was validated by my exchange with this man).
Well, living in an area with a large number of Sikhs, I was comfortable knowing he wasn't going to be angry or offended. But there I go stereotyping them again as compassionate people.
Well... yeah, it is a stereotype to assume he wouldn't be offended or angry.
Buddhists aren't quick to anger, either, but that doesn't mean I feel free to push boundaries with them I wouldn't with other people.
I'm dying that expression compassion to a Sikh = pushing boundaries.
"I don't lump Sikhs into a collective. Except when I do."
I think it's pretty safe to assume most people of any group would be saddened by yet another act of violence perpetrated against members of their group just because of who they are. And this man was very saddened to hear of the attack.
You honestly think it's bizarre that people might find it slightly weird that you approached a Sikh stranger to express sympathy for a shooting at a temple?
= understatement. We're on 3 pages, going on 4, of people freaking their shit out over her choice.
Just found this article. Uh oh, someone better tell these people that you know better than they do.
NEW YORK – The killing of six worshippers at a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee brought fresh worries Sunday to the half million U.S. followers of a faith whose congregants have worried about their safety since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when some began targeting adherents of a peaceful religion that stresses the equality of people.
By Jeffrey Phelps, AP While police have not identified the gunman, who was killed by police, or described a possible motive for the Wisconsin shootings, several leaders of Sikh organizations nationwide say the killings have brought to the surface fears that have lingered since 9/11 when some ignorant about their beliefs began mistaking them for potential terrorists.
"This is something we have been fearing since 9/11, that this kind of incident will take place," said Rajwant Singh, chairman of the Washington-based Sikh Council on Religion and Education. "It was a matter of time because there's so much ignorance and people confuse us (as) being members of Taliban or belonging to (Osama) bin Laden."Valarie Kaur, 31, a New Haven, Conn., filmmaker who has chronicled Sikh attacks for 11 years, said the shooting "is reverberating through every Sikh American home," where the worst is feared.
"We are experiencing it as a hate crime," she said. "Every Sikh American today is hurting, grieving and afraid."
The cloth turbans worn for centuries by members of the Sikh faith so they could better serve their communities through a commitment to the oneness of God in all faiths and equality for all people has ironically made them targets of those ignorant of their history, she said.
"That turban has tragically marked us as automatically suspect, perpetually foreign and potentially terrorists," Kaur said.
Amarjit Singh, vice president of the Wheaton, Ill.-based Illinois Sikh Community Center, which serves 5,000 Sikhs, agreed about the Sept. 11 fears and said the congregation prayed for the slain victims as word of the shooting spread.
"We have a lot of families who have family members that attend that temple," Singh said. "It seemed so random."
Two elderly men wearing turbans were shot to death in March while taking a walk in Elk Grove, Calif., and police are investigating it as a hate crime. Days after the 2001 terror attacks, a Sikh man was killed in suburban Phoenix. The man who was later convicted of his death had told his wife that "all Arabs should be shot."
And at airports, controversy has erupted when airport workers try to search or remove Sikh turbans, considered sacred in the Sikh faith.
Though there were no known threats, the New York Police Department announced it was increasing coverage in an abundance of caution in and around Sikh temples.
Harkirat Sandhu, 45, of Hanover Park, Ill., a member of Sikh Religious Society of Chicago for more than 10 years, said he worried more Sikhs could be targeted.
"The Sikh community is a peaceful community," he said. "We don't believe in this type of hate and crime. We condemn this situation."
"Americans of all faiths should stand in unified support with their Sikh brothers and sisters," said Sapreet Kaur, executive director of the New York-based Sikh Coalition, the largest Sikh American civil rights organization in the U.S.
President Barack Obama and his presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, expressed their sorrow in statements. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, whose parents are Sikh, posted a statement with condolences to "the innocent victims and the family of the heroic officer" on her Facebook page.
Kaur, the filmmaker, said she was encouraged by the outpouring from others, unimaginable a decade ago.
"My phone has been ringing off the hook," she said. "That gives me hope. Any expressions of solidarity, messages, prayers, will be felt not only by Sikhs in Milwaukee but all over the country."
Look, I don't think anyone's denying that your heart was in a good place here. It's just... a little strange, to some of us, to approach a total stranger this way.
It's more than a little strange to some of you. The comments here have been fascinating. "Pushing boundaries", "stereotyping", etc.
And it's not USA Today saying it, it's actual Sikhs talking. But again, you all know better than them, right?
You honestly think it's bizarre that people might find it slightly weird that you approached a Sikh stranger to express sympathy for a shooting at a temple?
= understatement. We're on 3 pages, going on 4, of people freaking their shit out over her choice.
Lol it's 2 pages of Casmgn grasping at every straw to defend her weird-ass comment to a stranger and digging herself into a deeper and deeper hole and a page worth of the rest of us pointing and laughing.
= understatement. We're on 3 pages, going on 4, of people freaking their shit out over her choice.
Lol it's 2 pages of Casmgn grasping at every straw to defend her weird-ass comment to a stranger and digging herself into a deeper and deeper hole and a page worth of the rest of us pointing and laughing.
I'm not grasping at every straw, I've been quite clear with my intention and my view on this.
Couldn't resist throwing in the self-righteous bitchiness though, huh? It's an addiction.
ETA: And I'd say it's you who is grasping at straws now, given that the man I talked to was deeply affected by hearing about the tragedy, and we now have quotes from actual Shikhs saying this has rocked the Sikh community in general and that they appreciates any prayers, comments, or thoughts are appreciated.
Jeez, okay. You're the most compassionate ever, and we're all holier-than-thou bitches, self-righteous bitches, live sad, empty lives, whatever, because we can't understand your actions here.
Point taken. You're ... the most compassionate ever? Except for that whole bitches part.
It's not about me being the most compassionate person ever, and that was clearly not the point of my post.
I'm nice to those who deserve it, perhaps that makes me a bitch too. But it's clear that most of you get enjoyment out of being bitches, and I have no issue with calling that out. And I do think that it's sad that some of you clearly get off on being bitches - you're right, people with full lives don't act that way.
But calling everyone bitches means you're better somehow? Or more fulfilled?
I see a lot of namecalling and vitriol in this post, but I don't think it's really coming from the people who don't agree with you.
Yes, I am namecalling and that isn't right either, but I see this behavior all the time on this board. I have no issue standing up to the "mean girls", I'm a big girl, I can take it.