Over the last several decades, it has become fashionable to at least pay lip-service to the notions of “tolerance” and “diversity”.
In some ways, this is a genuine step forward (given the virtually ubiquitous historical practice of various demographic “groups” oppressing/slaughtering one another). However, I don’t think it goes far enough — in that both ideas still implicitly or explicitly ascribe “value” to the various (externally-imposed) “identity” categories.
I have a feeling that I approach this topic from a fundamentally different direction:
It’s not that I’m “tolerant”, or that I value “diversity” as an end-in-itself: it’s more like I just don’t give a shit.
The basic “gimmick” of externally-imposed “identities” is: the expectation that the individuals upon whom those “identities” have been perpetrated must attempt to conform to the stereotypes which constitute the essence of such “identities”.
The above holds true for all of the typical “categories” covered by “anti-discrimination” laws (“race”, sex/gender/”Sexual orientation”, religious “belief”). Externally-imposed “identities” are merely the particular “package-deal” of stereotypes with which one happens to have been victimized. The central tragedy of the so-called “human condition” consists in the fact that people fail to recognize those imposed “identities” as the victimization they really are.
Thus, many individuals waste years/decades in a (futile) attempting to evade their own individuality (which consists, primarily, of all the ways in which they “fail” to enact their supposed “Demographic” destiny.
Four individuals in a house. Each of them have been isolated in a different room — chained to a structural-fixture from which it is exceedingly difficult to break free.
The notion of taking “pride” in an externally-imposed demographic “identity” strikes me as the equivalent of taking “pride” in the fact that one was chained to the pipes under the kitchen-sink.
I am incapable of being “proud” that I happen to have been born in (so-called) “Pennsylvania Dutch Country”:
- I had nothing to do with it. Nor did (most) of my relatives — except inasmuch as they lacked any sort of ambition to GTFO of that area.
- I recognize the fact that “Pennsylvania Dutch Country” was enabled by the (more or less systematic) slaughter of various “Indian” tribes, who are mostly ignored by current (white) “locals” — except to provide “exotic”-sounding names for rivers, creeks, and towns.
- I recognize that the Anabaptist groups (Amish and Mennonites) from whom many of my relatives ultimately derive were not genuinely interested in “religious liberty” as such — but merely in the “freedom” to victimize dissenters “in a manner of their own choosing”.
Any religious “group” which flees oppression only to oppress its own members becomes utterly discredited, by the mere fact of having done so.
The only question about any Ethnic/religious/cultural “group” is: what is the penalty for “dissent”?
If you’re really “lucky”, the penalties for dissent (individuality/consciousness) are limited to various sorts of emotional blackmail (IE: others expressing “disappointment” if a Jewish guy is romantically involved with a Black woman, or a dissident Amish individual being subjected to ordnung — “shunning”).
Unfortunately, not all demographic “groups” confine their victimization to this level:
So, yeah: I recognize the fact that externally-imposed “identity” is basically a form of victimization, and the penalties for resistance to it are often severe.
It is understandable that many/most are eventually “broken” (simply self-preservation).