Gora, Gori

[Simranjit]

Hi,

I'm travelling around the posts and I have read the words ''gora'' and ''gori" a couple of times. I arrived to the conclusion that they refer to "white" people. I'm very curious: ¿ are they specific for white sikhs or they are for any white person? ¿Is "gora" for males and "gori" for females?
Thank you

Love,

Ester

 

[sukhsingh]

Hi,

I'm travelling around the posts and I have read the words ''gora'' and ''gori" a couple of times. I arrived to the conclusion that they refer to "white" people. I'm very curious: ¿ are they specific for white sikhs or they are for any white person? ¿Is "gora" for males and "gori" for females?
Thank you

Love,

Ester

The unfortunate usage here is probably in the 'racial sense'.. And yes that is the masculine and feminine

 

[Admin]

I'm very curious: ¿ are they specific for white sikhs or they are for any white person? ¿Is "gora" for males and "gori" for females?

@Ester ji,

'Gora' or 'Gori' simply means 'White' in common spoken Punjabi/Hindi diction. So, unless used intentionally, it is not a racial term... surely not at SPN.

SPN proudly had a Gori Sikh as an SPN Admin and @Harkiran Kaur ji is also a Gori Sikh as a SPN Leader! And there have been many many, who have been an integral part of SPN fraternity from time to time.

The unfortunate usage here is probably in the 'racial sense'...

@sukhsingh ji,

I would rather avoid such blanket statements.

Thank you

 

[sukhsingh]

@Ester ji,

'Gora' or 'Gori' simply means 'White' in common spoken Punjabi/Hindi diction. So, unless used intentionally, it is not a racial term... surely not at SPN.

SPN proudly had a Gori Sikh as an SPN Admin and @Harkiran Kaur ji is also a Gori Sikh as a SPN Leader! And there have been many many, who have been an integral part of SPN fraternity from time to time.



@sukhsingh ji,

I would rather avoid such blanket statements.

Thank you

I think you misunderstand me.. I think it was perfectly obvious in what context the OP was asking the question...
1. I believe it was a loaded question
2. I in part made a considered response, because I can't remember ever reading that quite crass phraseology. People on here are pretty 'woke', I just don't think they would use that terminology
3. If those terms were used I'm prepared to take a punt and say that they were only ever used in a racial way. It's just to crude.. The people here are much more discerning.
4. After parsing all that I thought.. Ok let's go with this,
5. Rather than getting upset with me why don't we see if the OP has anything more to add

 

[Admin]

The unfortunate usage here is probably in the 'racial sense'..

Sorry if i came across as being upset... I am not... just to clarify, I construed the words "usage here" implied "SPN".

 

[sukhsingh]

Sorry if i came across as being upset... I am not... just to clarify, I construed the words "usage here" implied "SPN".

It's all good bro, sorry if it seemed like I snapped.. I was interested to hear from the OP from what they had to say after they throw a firecracker in the room..
Run with it.

 

[Simranjit]

Thank you Aman Ji and Sukhsing Ji,

both answers helped me a lot to understand the meaning of the words and the different connotations that the words may have depending on the context.

I think you misunderstand me.. I think it was perfectly obvious in what context the OP was asking the question...
1. I believe it was a loaded question
2. I in part made a considered response, because I can't remember ever reading that quite crass phraseology. People on here are pretty 'woke', I just don't think they would use that terminology
3. If those terms were used I'm prepared to take a punt and say that they were only ever used in a racial way. It's just to crude.. The people here are much more discerning.
4. After parsing all that I thought.. Ok let's go with this,
5. Rather than getting upset with me why don't we see if the OP has anything more to add

Sukhsingh Ji,

1) It was not a loaded question at all.
2) As I said I read it a couple of times here. Written by members that are gori themselves.

Love,
Ester

 

[sukhsingh]

Thank you Aman Ji and Sukhsing Ji,

both answers helped me a lot to understand the meaning of the words and the different connotations that the words may have depending on the context.

Sukhsingh Ji,

1) It was not a loaded question at all.
2) As I said I read it a couple of times here. Written by members that are gori themselves.

Love,
Ester

I stand corrected!

 

[Balbir27]

Ester Ji,

All's well that ends well (Shakespeare).

It is the intention and/or the context that makes all the difference and creates differences and misunderstandings amongst people and nations, even.

I felt this is a good time and place to proffer some statements that paint a picture (You all may already know this, but it may be useful to readers who don't)

Not so long ago, in North America, there lived (still live) the Red Indians aka Redskins, as called by those who invaded their lands (English/French/Spanish/Portuguese etc.), and who in turn, were called White men (or man). There was no racial discrimination in these names, it was simply descriptive, and accepted as such. So, a Red Indian would perhaps say "White man speaks with a forked tongue", whilst the invader would probably say "The red man...such and such".

Later, when slaves were taken from Africa to the Americas, they were called all sorts of names, including "{censored}/negro" [considered rude today]. It is acceptable, now, to call an American with true African origins as Black American (Note the "Black", which is not derogatory).

The colour of the human skin is solely dependant on where in the world you live, naturally. So, for example, a person living in equatorial Africa will have the maximum exposure to sunlight, so are the darkest, whilst a person living in Greenland would have the minimal, so are, probably the whitest. (Today, there are various unnatural factors which confound the equation)

So, what does God's given, free, sunlight have to do with all this?

Sunlight is the Life sustaining energy on this Earth, from our Sun. It comprises of visible and invisible light, some of which is deadly/harmful. God has created certain natural filters to block or reduce the harmful effects. God has also created a self-defence mechanism in our own (God-given bodies), namely cells which live just under the skin, called melanocytes. These cells produce a pigment called melanin which is the basis of how white or dark our skin is. The stimulant is sunlight or how much of it is received on the skin.

You can see now, that the colour of one's skin is subject to the Laws of Nature (or God's Laws). It is humankind who has created the discrimination and divisions.

So, coming back to "Gora and "Gori", as collectively explained above, by both Aman Singh and Sukhsingh, it is simply descriptive and not discriminatory.

This, is my understanding, which is open to any criticism or correction, supplied by constructive and reasonable arguments.

See? How you can be free from the "established" so called "norms" in this world and question and challenge to your heart's content without fear or favour? Welcome to Nanakian Philosophy. Welcome to SPN.

Sat Sri Akal

 

[Balbir27]

I was surprised when I saw my post and found that a word I had written, which I stated was rude, had been automatically "censored", albeit I was trying to illustrate a point.

I was not aware that SPN had programmed this into their Computers.

Kudos to SPN. Keep this up.

Sat Sri Akal

 

[Simranjit]

I stand corrected!

I feel honestly relieved that you trust now my intentions when making the question

 

[Simranjit]

Ester Ji,

All's well that ends well (Shakespeare).

It is the intention and/or the context that makes all the difference and creates differences and misunderstandings amongst people and nations, even.

I felt this is a good time and place to proffer some statements that paint a picture (You all may already know this, but it may be useful to readers who don't)

Not so long ago, in North America, there lived (still live) the Red Indians aka Redskins, as called by those who invaded their lands (English/French/Spanish/Portuguese etc.), and who in turn, were called White men (or man). There was no racial discrimination in these names, it was simply descriptive, and accepted as such. So, a Red Indian would perhaps say "White man speaks with a forked tongue", whilst the invader would probably say "The red man...such and such".

Later, when slaves were taken from Africa to the Americas, they were called all sorts of names, including "{censored}/negro" [considered rude today]. It is acceptable, now, to call an American with true African origins as Black American (Note the "Black", which is not derogatory).

The colour of the human skin is solely dependant on where in the world you live, naturally. So, for example, a person living in equatorial Africa will have the maximum exposure to sunlight, so are the darkest, whilst a person living in Greenland would have the minimal, so are, probably the whitest. (Today, there are various unnatural factors which confound the equation)

So, what does God's given, free, sunlight have to do with all this?

Sunlight is the Life sustaining energy on this Earth, from our Sun. It comprises of visible and invisible light, some of which is deadly/harmful. God has created certain natural filters to block or reduce the harmful effects. God has also created a self-defence mechanism in our own (God-given bodies), namely cells which live just under the skin, called melanocytes. These cells produce a pigment called melanin which is the basis of how white or dark our skin is. The stimulant is sunlight or how much of it is received on the skin.

You can see now, that the colour of one's skin is subject to the Laws of Nature (or God's Laws). It is humankind who has created the discrimination and divisions.

So, coming back to "Gora and "Gori", as collectively explained above, by both Aman Singh and Sukhsingh, it is simply descriptive and not discriminatory.

This, is my understanding, which is open to any criticism or correction, supplied by constructive and reasonable arguments.

See? How you can be free from the "established" so called "norms" in this world and question and challenge to your heart's content without fear or favour? Welcome to Nanakian Philosophy. Welcome to SPN.

Sat Sri Akal

Thanks a lot, Balbir,
it gave me a complementary point of view

 

[sukhsingh]

I feel honestly relieved that you trust now my intentions when making the question

Thank you for so graciously accepting my apology!

It's all love

Very nice to meet you
Sukh

 

[Admin]

I was surprised when I saw my post and found that a word I had written, which I stated was rude, had been automatically "censored", albeit I was trying to illustrate a point.

I was not aware that SPN had programmed this into their Computers.

Kudos to SPN. Keep this up.

Sat Sri Akal

Thank you Balbir Ji!

SPN forum software allows us to define a list of censored words.
This is an ever expanding list evolving ever since the inception of SPN.

Sat Sri Akal

 

[sukhsingh]

Not so long ago, in North America, there lived (still live) the Red Indians aka Redskins, as called by those who invaded their lands (English/French/Spanish/Portuguese etc.), and who in turn, were called White men (or man). There was no racial discrimination in these names, it was simply descriptive, and accepted as such. So, a Red Indian would perhaps say "White man speaks with a forked tongue", whilst the invader would probably say "The red man...such and such".

I think you have watched to many western movies..

The 'red Indian' caricature is a much later creation and at at its very heart its racist!

 

[sukhsingh]

Later, when slaves were taken from Africa to the Americas, they were called all sorts of names, including "{censored}/negro" [considered rude today]. It is acceptable, now, to call an American with true African origins as Black American (Note the "Black", which is not derogatory).

They were called these terms by their oppressor

So, coming back to "Gora and "Gori", as collectively explained above, by both Aman Singh and Sukhsingh, it is simply descriptive and not discriminatory.

Just to clarify I don't think think that gora. / gori way we should describe people

 

[Balbir27]

@sukhsingh

Touche.

Sat Sri Akal

 

[Balbir27]

@sukhsingh

I think you have watched to many western movies..

The 'red Indian' caricature is a much later creation and at at its very heart its racist!

They were called these terms by their oppressor

Kindly allow me to correct you.

In 2005, Ives Goddard, The Senior Linguist in the Smithsonian Institution, produced a 16 page study titled “I am a Redskin: The adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826)”, citing a list of references running 3 pages.

In 2016 The WPO, published an article about the history of the word “redskin” and referred to the study above.

In a nutshell, Goddard’s study evidenced the fact that it was the Native Indians themselves who first called themselves “Redskins” (in a 1769 document).

In 1812, President James Madison, himself referred to this description, at a Washington reception for Native Americans. His speech included the words “red people” and “my red children”. The Sioux Chief (French Crow) also used the words “I am a red-skin..”

So, Sukhsingh Ji, the statements I made are backed 100% by evidence, whilst yours are not. I do watch Westerns sometimes for their entertainment value, but certainly do not use them as resources for my statements, as you conclude.

So, if you are expressing an opinion, kindly refrain from trying to “teach” others, unless of course you have provided undisputed evidence to the contrary.

I support Original’s similar thought expressed in another discussion going on currently!

Sat Sri Akal

 

[sukhsingh]

@sukhsingh

Kindly allow me to correct you.

In 2005, Ives Goddard, The Senior Linguist in the Smithsonian Institution, produced a 16 page study titled “I am a Redskin: The adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826)”, citing a list of references running 3 pages.

In 2016 The WPO, published an article about the history of the word “redskin” and referred to the study above.

In a nutshell, Goddard’s study evidenced the fact that it was the Native Indians themselves who first called themselves “Redskins” (in a 1769 document).

In 1812, President James Madison, himself referred to this description, at a Washington reception for Native Americans. His speech included the words “red people” and “my red children”. The Sioux Chief (French Crow) also used the words “I am a red-skin..”

So, Sukhsingh Ji, the statements I made are backed 100% by evidence, whilst yours are not. I do watch Westerns sometimes for their entertainment value, but certainly do not use them as resources for my statements, as you conclude.

So, if you are expressing an opinion, kindly refrain from trying to “teach” others, unless of course you have provided undisputed evidence to the contrary.

I support Original’s similar thought expressed in another discussion going on currently!

Sat Sri Akal

I'm sorry but you seem to miss the point.. Before Europeans or the 'white man' arrived in the americas did native Americans refer to themselves as redskins? I would have to say they did not because there were only redskins.

Moreover the people's of the America's were a hugely diverse group of people made up of hundreds of different tribes with different cultures.. The fact that as late as the
1769 allegedly referred to themselves as redskin is in fact evidence of the racialism..

The words of the American president only brings weight to the argument of European parochialism

 

[Balbir27]

@sukhsingh

Touche again.

Now, Kindly provide the Evidence of your claims/statements. Or say that you cannot.

Sat Sri Akal (means God is Truth. So Please follow God)