[scrupulusalbion]

>they were first treated as a single group of lock-step individuals by those looking to oppress them. Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?

I think it plays into the propaganda of the oppressive regime by not asserting individuality. "See, they identify as the group we claimed they were the whole time," the regime would say.

That being said, there is acting as a member of a group and identifying as a member of that group. The former need not entail the latter. For instance, donating money to the ACLU doesn't change your identity to ACLU-er (et simis). No, you are just helping that cause.

[citrablue]

I'm not sure everyone feels the same way. When you donate to the ACLU, don't they send things like bumper stickers that people use to signal to others that they are the kind of person who donates to the ACLU?

I wonder how much of the modern identity politics framework has been influenced by the rise of modern marketing, which has an explicit focus on identity-based advertising ("I'm a toys-r-us kid!")

[dragonwriter]

> I wonder how much of the modern identity politics framework has been influenced by the rise of modern marketing, which has an explicit focus on identity-based advertising ("I'm a toys-r-us kid!")

The kind of tribalism to which such advertising appeals is both millennia older than modern commercial advertising and has been a regular part of religious and political propaganda for millenia, which is where modern commercial advertising got it, not vice versa.

[citrablue]

True, but don't you think the sophistication and frequency have increased considerably since then?

Add in the fact that it comes from complete strangers, and I think even if it's roots are way back in history, the modern environment is very different.