That's Not Cool...
I was just "surfing" the web a few days ago, when I came across something disheartening.
I've known for a long time now that the US army does not allow turbaned Sikhs to join. The Canadian "army" does, the British do, the Australians do, but the Americans do not.
I've actually known and heard of at least half a dozen people who were turned down when they volunteered to join... because they violated the beard and headwar policy. And the worst cases I heard involved turbaned Sikhs being forcefully removed from the army when the ban was first invoked...
The reason given isn't that bad or anything - 'unit cohesion' is disrupted the army claims. I think that the reason is lame, but I don't think its intentionally racist or implemented for the purpose of being bigoted. I always think like that though, so maybe I'm just always naive.
Anyways! back to what I came across when I was searching for an article a few days ago. Apparently, Dwight D. Eisenhower specifically ALLOWED for the use of Turbans and beards in the military during the 1950s by executive order because he wanted to honour what he considered to be the bravery and courage he witnessed amongst Sikh soldiers during World War Two (when he was the head Allied general). This seems like a really nice gesture, particularly because there was no pressing need to recruit Turbaned Sikhs during the 1950s. There were probably only a few hundred in the entire United States. Some Sikhs from Yuba City in California requested to fight in Korea... and Eisenhower felt obliged to honour their request.
And then... Ronald Reagan rescinded that executive order! I know that by putting this information in the hands of my left-wing nutjob Sikh friends, they'll use it to further claim that Republicans are eeeeeeeeeevil racists, but that's okay, because no one takes them (my friends) seriously anyway. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Reagan did not do so in mean-spirit and only acted on the advice of his generals or the civilian bosses at the Pentagon... but I'm sure the Sikh Coalition or one of those Sikh organizations could lobby the White House to change that policy, right? It'd make practical sense too. More troops are needed at the moment, so they might allow for it due to neccesity... I'd be surprised if anything happened though...
I've known for a long time now that the US army does not allow turbaned Sikhs to join. The Canadian "army" does, the British do, the Australians do, but the Americans do not.
I've actually known and heard of at least half a dozen people who were turned down when they volunteered to join... because they violated the beard and headwar policy. And the worst cases I heard involved turbaned Sikhs being forcefully removed from the army when the ban was first invoked...
The reason given isn't that bad or anything - 'unit cohesion' is disrupted the army claims. I think that the reason is lame, but I don't think its intentionally racist or implemented for the purpose of being bigoted. I always think like that though, so maybe I'm just always naive.
Anyways! back to what I came across when I was searching for an article a few days ago. Apparently, Dwight D. Eisenhower specifically ALLOWED for the use of Turbans and beards in the military during the 1950s by executive order because he wanted to honour what he considered to be the bravery and courage he witnessed amongst Sikh soldiers during World War Two (when he was the head Allied general). This seems like a really nice gesture, particularly because there was no pressing need to recruit Turbaned Sikhs during the 1950s. There were probably only a few hundred in the entire United States. Some Sikhs from Yuba City in California requested to fight in Korea... and Eisenhower felt obliged to honour their request.
And then... Ronald Reagan rescinded that executive order! I know that by putting this information in the hands of my left-wing nutjob Sikh friends, they'll use it to further claim that Republicans are eeeeeeeeeevil racists, but that's okay, because no one takes them (my friends) seriously anyway. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Reagan did not do so in mean-spirit and only acted on the advice of his generals or the civilian bosses at the Pentagon... but I'm sure the Sikh Coalition or one of those Sikh organizations could lobby the White House to change that policy, right? It'd make practical sense too. More troops are needed at the moment, so they might allow for it due to neccesity... I'd be surprised if anything happened though...
posted by Japnaam Singh at
12:01 AM
2 Comments:
actually, japnaam singh, i'm happy that Sikhs aren't allowed to join the USA army. it's better Khalsas fight in akal purakh kee fauj, than in the biggest tyrant rogue nation in the world... (ohhhhhhhh)
-you know who this is :)
I agree with that--theoretically speaking.
However, the Khalsa Panth doesn't have an army to speak of, and almost all of the American Army's missions are (in my eyes) very good sevaas... i.e. liberating Afghanistan and Iraq... so therefore being part of the American army is a good thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home