The “American” identity you think exists does not. American culture is a mix of cultures, bringing in all sorts of things from other places where people came. The idea that people came to America and gave up their previous identity is laughable and ignorant.

They brought in some things and left others behind. As I pointed out a few posts ago, the USA is quite notable for the time of its founding for lacking any concept of titled nobility, to give just one example. No one came here from Europe and tried to be more Europe. In fact, we kinda had this big war over the idea that that was exactly what we were not supposed to be. (Yes, I know, England isn’t technically part of the continent of Europe, but you know what I mean.)

See this is why people claim you’re a bigot. That’s the kind of ignorant, fact-free statement that suggests someone who just doesn’t like someone who is different.

Yup, you got me. I can’t stand people who are different. That’s why I spent two years in South America, where the culture, the food, and even the climate were completely different from what I’m used to, where you can’t even perform such fundamental tasks as buying food without learning to speak a second language: because I hate “different.”

That’s a myth. A myth pushed by racists.

Are their actual writings, copies of which (and some originals even) still exist today, mythical?

And… seriously, you claim to despise partisan politics, to such a degree that you refuse to publish party affiliations when talking about a member of Congress in one of your posts. (Which is a laudable ideal that I completely agree with, BTW.) So why are you playing the “systemic racism” card? That’s essentially the “terrorism” of the far left: a problem that hurt a lot of Americans years ago, that we must never be allowed to forget, or to acknowledge how little of an actual problem it is today, because it’s so valuable for playing on people’s emotions for political profit. It’s this huge blind spot that a lot of people have. Even people who are aware of the Shirky Principle and Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy don’t seem to understand that yes, they apply to groups such as civil rights organizations too.

If you actually take a more than superficial look into racial issues, what you find is that almost every time, Occam’s Razor cuts accusations of racism in the USA, particularly of the “systemic” variety, to shreds, as the underlying problems in almost every case can be adequately explained without any need to invoke a racially-prejudiced oppressor. (My personal favorite is the widely-reported claim that the housing crash of 2008 was somehow a racist event, because when all the dust had settled, the data showed that all of the socioeconomic gains that the black community had made since the Civil Rights movement had been nullified. The part that they’re not telling, because it doesn’t fit their narrative, is that long before 2008, economists were already pointing out how those gains had been erased, and that the culprit was the widespread use of drugs, particularly cocaine, in many parts of the black community; real estate had nothing to do with it. Taken at face value, this might even suggest that the negative impact of the housing crash on black Americans was disproportionately light!)

Moving to a new country is not giving up your identity.

“Giving up your identity” is your phrase, not mine. Please don’t put words in my mouth, particularly not for the sake of pointing out how silly they sound when I didn’t actually say them. Changing where you live, though–especially to a far away place–absolutely does involve changing your identity to a pretty serious degree, because a lot of your identity is bound up with where you live. It affects everything from the climate you live in, (which in turn affects what sorts of clothes are practical to wear,) to the people you associate with (your neighbors) to the meanings of certain words.

No. Not at all. Moving to a country for new opportunities or to experience new things or to get away from persecution is one thing. Pretending that you don’t keep your *culture* and *customs* or even *language* is another thing entirely.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but if I had to guess, I’d guess that you haven’t moved very many times in your life even within the USA, much less outside of it. Would I be right?

Speaking as someone who’s actually done it, when you go to live in another country, trying to keep your old customs and language is just asking for trouble. I wasn’t kidding when I said you have to know Spanish to buy food in Argentina. If you go to the supermarket and the clerk asks you “¿Por favor de teclar tu nùmero DNI?” and you don’t know what that means, you’re not leaving that store with any food! (They’re asking for an identification number roughly equivalent to SSNs in the USA. It’s required by law as part of the sale. That’s just one of a hundred cultural details that you pick up very quickly by basic necessity.)

Again, please check your assumptions here because they match up identically to standard racist and bigoted thinking and you appear to be pushing the myths of such people.

This is known, somewhat informally, as the “Hitler Ate Sugar” fallacy:

1) Hitler was evil.
2) Hitler ate sugar.
3) Therefore, eating sugar is evil.

Simply because some person or group that is undoubtedly evil says or does some specific thing does not necessarily make that specific thing evil too. It’s a rhetorical trap that’s all too easy to fall into.

the version you seem to have gleaned is not an accurate portrayal of either historical or modern America.

I wasn’t aware that history had “versions”. It’s supposed to be something objective: history is what really happened. Of course, that’s often not politically palatable to certain groups, so they come up with “versions” that better fit their ideals. But I prefer to stick with what really happened. Personally I find it difficult to take seriously people who talk about history having versions and believe in contemporary systemic racism. But maybe that’s just me.