- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
I think people pick on Sikhs because they're the religion least likely to go full-on rampage, not despite it.
It's like lefties pick on the 'turn the other cheek' Christians not the Muslims. In fact, they don't even mess with the Westboro Baptist Church type Christians who won't beat you up, but they will definitely wreck your year with vexatious lawsuits and harassment.
It's always Sikhs, Mormons, and amiable Mid West Christians because people know those groups got a moral code that prevents them from striking back effectively.
It is a grievous error to believe that a Sikh will not retaliate, as a cultural norm. IME, you are unlikely to be beaten up directly...you will pay. Unless you're tangled up with organized crime, largely smuggling or drugs.
Mormons on the other hand, seem deeply committed to the idea that stupidity is its own punishment, and the primary act of retaliation will be extremely quiet boycotts.
Midwest Christians (closely related, sometimes by cousin marriage to ultra Christians kicking around Western Canada) WILL beat the shit out of you. They are also a little gun happy. There are a lot of hunting accidents in Canada, with a lot of cross shrines and public grieving.
YMMV.
I personally think that people like Miriam target Sikhs because of deep, deep Muslim hatred, and don't bother absorbing the fact that a turban isn't the same as the headwear of middle eastern Muslims. It's a proxy prejuduce.
No PL (who doesn't have a racist grandmother sonewhere in the family tree...) but gramma pretty well thinks that if you're brown and wear something on your head, it's your fault if people think you're a terrorist. Thanks Fox News. Your steady diet of ambiguous paranoia works like a damn on 90 year old peasant farmers.