What do you think of civil rights movements and "tolerance"?

Question

within anarchists and radical political circles, people have expressed opinions that are suspicious of the terms "tolerance" and "acceptance" for previously more openly-hated identities (like "gay" and "black"). One example that comes to mind in light of gay marriage legalization is the queer anarchist distaste for gay marriage, since it leads to a state-sanctioning of homosexuality within a competitive, hostile, and authoritarian economic system.

However, the civil rights movement resulted in less open hatred and violence towards black people, even if the state and several institutions still beat, imprison, and enslave them. Even if being merely "tolerated" under a system that uses violence and competition leads to a more "diversified" alienation, the promotion of civil rights does have benefits for the more disadvantaged groups.

Are civil rights and tolerance/acceptance something to be desired?

Comments

i see civil rights as a very different issue than tolerance. tolerance is something that every individual can decide to exhibit or not, contextually. rights of any kind are only meaningful in the context of hierarchical, authoritarian institutions, and are determined by others.

in the current world, of course some actions taken by those in power will serve to make some things more bearable for some people. that is largely a pressure release, to pacify those that might otherwise be enraged enough to actually engage in widespread rebellion. so for those that believe in the system, or even simply try to live within it, no doubt civil rights are a good thing. to the extent they mean anything at all and are actually respected by the ptb. i do not see them as relevant in my anarchist world.

---

what's ptb? never heard this term before

---

oh, sorry, ptb = powers that be. the big "them". :-)