Inspired by an exchange on another thread.
When nearly any group that has been historically marginalized or oppressed begins to make a concerted and organized attempt to gain equal rights--especially when the group has created a specific subculture in response to said oppression or marginalization--there seems to be a conflict between those who wish to assimilate in order to show that they're just like the dominant society, and therefore worthy to be included in it, and those who desire to be taken "as is", wanting to be accorded their full rights without sacrificing specific aspects of the cultural or subcultural identity associated with the group. We see this in the 60s with Martin Luther King, Jr. on one said and Malcolm X (and, later, The Black Panthers) on the other. In the 80s, gay rights groups were often torn between the mainstream "We're just like straight people" approach of GLAAD and the in-your-face "kiss-ins" held by Queer Nation. This conflict continues to this day.
While I'm largely on the side of those who do not wish to be forced to assimilate, and want to keep the aspects of their culture or subculture (To use a typical example, why should it be up to a flamboyantly gay man to tone it down in order to keep from making me nervous, and not up to me to learn to not be nervous around flamboyantly gay men?), I also admit to some sympathy with the assimilationists. There are black people who do not associate with black "culture" (or appreciate it more in the abstract than as something that they are able to directly relate to), and cringe whenever they're asked to account for the actions or behavior of a militant on the news. There are gay men and lesbians who wince at those who fall into the stereotype, and whose coming out processes were further complicated by a desire to not be associated with them.
Still and all, I have to ask those who agree with the assimilationists "Why is it the responsibility of a black person to fit into a white ideal when it comes to speech, mannerisms, and dress if he or she otherwise does his or her job properly, and doesn't harm others in the process? Why is it the responsibility of a man who feels comfortable in his flamboyance, or a woman who feels more comfortable with androgynous dress and mannerisms to fit to heteronormative visions of respectability, so long as the same basic rules are followed?"
I mean, yes, gay pride parades can seem a bit over the top with the sexuality (though that's been largely toned down in recent years, from what I've seen), but they're no worse than what you'll catch straight people doing at Mardi Gras or on Spring Break. "Urban" young men and women can seem a bit intimidating, but so can groups of white men and women out clubbing.
I'm not sure that I'm expressing this clearly, but it can largely be summed up this way: What's the big deal if someone feels more comfortable exhibiting certain cultural or subcultural characteristics? Why are we so easily offended by this?
