Explaining “That’s Not Who We Are”


Commenter JollyOldSoul explains:

“America was built by immigrants. Almost 100% of ethnic Bangladeshis living in America are immigrants. Therefore Bangladeshis built America. QED.”

Commenter Ben Frank explains for me why I find so irritating Obama’s/Hillary’s go-to phrase: “That’s not who we are:”

“That’s not who we are” is a conversation-ender. Cheap shot. Empty statement. Contains no information. Primitive taboo-speak.

First, it presumes to speak for all 300 million of “we”, which is a lie. Second, it dodges the question of “who are we?” by simply asserting that we’re anything but people who enforce immigration laws. That’s also not true because our recent ancestors in 1925 were surely people who enforced immigration laws.

It’s 21st century prudery, like an elderly Victorian shutting down a conversation with “Why it’s simply not done!”

Commenter bgates explains:

It’s an assertion of tribal solidarity based on a putative rejection of tribal solidarity. All are welcome here – and if you don’t think so, get out, hater. Iconoclasm disguised as ancestor worship.

Why is it important to be who we are? It must be that identity is important. And what is our identity, in this telling? We don’t really have one. We are a welcome mat for Bangladesh.

It’s infuriating how good Democrats are at insisting on contradictions. We must always be who we are, and that requires fundamental transformation. Change! Always change – but always the same change.

We have a Living Constitution but not a living Zeroth Amendment. Every syllable that Founding Father Emma Lazarus carved on the Statue of Liberty in 1776 is sacred and eternal.

[Comment at Unz.com]