he’s not that funny

you nearly always hit the nail squarely on the head–i’ve heard from other quarters, notably ta-nehisi coates, that the worries over creating humor with a minority as the subject isn’t nearly as challenging as some think (and the absolute requirement is that it be funny–if anything, that’s why this guy may fail).

re: symbols.

It’s semantic hairsplitting as far as I’m concerned. I was just trying to be funny. Trying…

next time i will go on a rant about “existential physical commitment” to one’s “internal placement of worldview towards the divine.”

I just think he’s not particularly funny.

Agreed.

20 · watevz said

i’m sensitive to appropriation of and misinterpretation of sikh symbols.

VEE ARE NAWT SYMBULZ!!!

his comedy is alright, i definitely don’t laugh my head off, but that’s because i’m sensitive to appropriation of and misinterpretation of sikh symbols. but that’s my oversensitivity from being sikh and seeing firsthand the negative repurcussions of misunderstanding on the sikh body, both individual and community. still, i don’t feel threatened by his use of inappropriateness because he wears a turban and keeps his beard, so i know he is committed on a personal level and not about destruction of what is dear. if it were otherwise, i would interpret his message as self-hate/rejection. also, the space where he says these inappropriate things is a space of irreverence, so i feel like that is part and parcel of his craft. i look forward to seeing more of his comedy! keep at it narinder singh!

and i’ll give him this too. he’s cute.

Bada Bing, way to hyperbolize a rational comment in an attempt to derail the underlying argument. Using your logic, you only believe in “free speech” when it serves to undermine, ridicule, or slander a community group.

Last time I checked, disagreement was part of the free speech process. A person can say whatever they want, but free speech also invokes great responsibility. A person shouldn’t have to worry about death threats or censorship, but you shouldn’t be surprised if there is critique, dissent, or argument, or if your views are decried. Free speech is about an exchange of ideas, not about wholesale acceptance of all viewpoints as equal or equivalent. You could come around and tell me the sky is green; if it’s blue to me, I’m not going to agree with you, nor do I have to give you much merit for your comment. That doesn’t make either of us wrong or right, it’s just part of the process.

(is he really talking about getting laid vis-a-vis the turban? Kind of inappropriate)

When people used to ask my cousin Mintoo why he wore a turban he’d answer that it was to tie up girls with, and my man did NOT have the “contraceptive” problems Narinder complains of. In Texas. In junior high.

You might as well have added that you empathize with the anger of those who sent Narinder the death threats. This sort of thinking is the font for fanatical actions like book burnings and killings. What is acceptable and what isn’t? Where do you draw the line? I have seen this often: smart, educated minorities are all for freedom of speech except for when the speech is related to their own communities. I don’t recall enough, but weren’t similar sentiments expressed on the Dera Sachha Sauda thread, by otherwise reasonable commenters? I mean you all will say, oh violence is bad but then in the same breath disapprove of the freedom of someone’s speech. It’s not that these guys were going around abusing Sikh Gurus.

I think it cuts against the image that Sikhs are asked to present to the world (and amongst themselves) when someone wearing a dastar is making crass comments and jokes that toe or cross the line of what’s considered acceptable behavior in religious practice.

I disagree. As Che Guevara said, the role of the guerilla is to liberate the public’s revolutionary imagination, to pave the way for more substantial change. Also, “there is no such thing as bad publicity.”

If I understand Narinder’s stated goals correctly, then his indirect approach and mine are not that different (except that my medium is fiction.) In case you haven’t noticed, most of America doesn’t even know who Sikhs are. So Narinder can use his comic persona (not to be confused with the “real” Narinder) and I can use my characters (flawed, all-too-human beings, not to be confused with the “real” me) to call attention to Sikh’s existence and concerns. That clears the way for scholars and more serious types to step in and raise the level of discourse.

That said, I agree with nfa. Nothing funny about straight propaganda.