Pretty Cool...
On the FBI's homepage there's a link to an advertisement in the top right-hand corner which leads to a video in which a young Sikh intelligence agent acts as the poster boy for the FBI's recruitment drive for more intelligence analysts. Apparently the ad even played in the superbowl.
I thought it was pretty cool. Considering that Turbaned Sikhs aren't allowed to join the US military, this is probably the second-best form of publicity imaginable.
Most of the (American Sikh) whiners who complain about how mainstream society isn't accepting, tolerant or educated about Sikhs should start thinking a bit more deeply about why that be the case.
In America, the Democratic Party takes a lot of constituencies for granted. Blacks are probably the most obvious amongst them, but all types of Asian Americans are also seen as natural democratic party voting blocks. This is a horrible image for the Sikh community and it's just a horrible reality anyway. It KILLS all forms of inclusion and involvement in the process.
In BC, Sikhs have truly capitalized on their reputation as swing voters. I actually think that BC politicians probably spend a disproportionate amount of time courting the Sikh vote. This is a good thing though. Sikh Canadians become an integral part of the process - their votes are actively sought by both main parties. Yes, it's annoying when we're treated as mindless special interests who can be easily bought off with symbolic appointments and visits to our events, but it's a sign of real inclusion when BOTH parties feel that they can move votes through active campaigning.
In other jurisdictions, this really isn't the case. Across America, the Democratic party feels no need to be inclusive with Sikhs because they feel that they have the Asian vote locked up. And with Republicans, there's two problems. Firstly, a number of republicans feel more comfortable with evangelical Christians as their party's representatives. I don't think this is too much of a problem because there are indeed a number of secular Republicans and also because there's obviously a number of prominent Jewish Republicans as well. With the proper communication of a Sikh candidate being a "person of faith" as well, any hurdles with evangelicals should be overcome with time. Secondly, there aren't many Sikhs active in the Republican ranks. A Turbaned Sikh ran for the Illinois Republican Senate Primary - but he got creamed, he finished in last place I think - I think that was mostly just because he was a pretty poor candidate anyway.
Anyways - I went wayyyy off topic, but I'll just re-iterate my point one last time: Being perceived as a mindless democratic (or liberal) voting block kills a community's influence and it re-enforces a sense of separateness that need not exist. By being perceived as exclusively belonging to a single party, stereotypes and prejudices are created easily. When there's a more equal distribution of support - Sikhs will be increasingly perceived as integrated and included with the rest of society.
Update: Most of the Sikhs I know live in California, so I might have an unrepresentative idea of the American Sikh community's voting tendencies since California is a relatively liberal state.
I thought it was pretty cool. Considering that Turbaned Sikhs aren't allowed to join the US military, this is probably the second-best form of publicity imaginable.
Most of the (American Sikh) whiners who complain about how mainstream society isn't accepting, tolerant or educated about Sikhs should start thinking a bit more deeply about why that be the case.
In America, the Democratic Party takes a lot of constituencies for granted. Blacks are probably the most obvious amongst them, but all types of Asian Americans are also seen as natural democratic party voting blocks. This is a horrible image for the Sikh community and it's just a horrible reality anyway. It KILLS all forms of inclusion and involvement in the process.
In BC, Sikhs have truly capitalized on their reputation as swing voters. I actually think that BC politicians probably spend a disproportionate amount of time courting the Sikh vote. This is a good thing though. Sikh Canadians become an integral part of the process - their votes are actively sought by both main parties. Yes, it's annoying when we're treated as mindless special interests who can be easily bought off with symbolic appointments and visits to our events, but it's a sign of real inclusion when BOTH parties feel that they can move votes through active campaigning.
In other jurisdictions, this really isn't the case. Across America, the Democratic party feels no need to be inclusive with Sikhs because they feel that they have the Asian vote locked up. And with Republicans, there's two problems. Firstly, a number of republicans feel more comfortable with evangelical Christians as their party's representatives. I don't think this is too much of a problem because there are indeed a number of secular Republicans and also because there's obviously a number of prominent Jewish Republicans as well. With the proper communication of a Sikh candidate being a "person of faith" as well, any hurdles with evangelicals should be overcome with time. Secondly, there aren't many Sikhs active in the Republican ranks. A Turbaned Sikh ran for the Illinois Republican Senate Primary - but he got creamed, he finished in last place I think - I think that was mostly just because he was a pretty poor candidate anyway.
Anyways - I went wayyyy off topic, but I'll just re-iterate my point one last time: Being perceived as a mindless democratic (or liberal) voting block kills a community's influence and it re-enforces a sense of separateness that need not exist. By being perceived as exclusively belonging to a single party, stereotypes and prejudices are created easily. When there's a more equal distribution of support - Sikhs will be increasingly perceived as integrated and included with the rest of society.
Update: Most of the Sikhs I know live in California, so I might have an unrepresentative idea of the American Sikh community's voting tendencies since California is a relatively liberal state.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
4:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home