It's an interesting observation. I've been thinking about re-titling my autobiography 'The Crossover Kid', and I'll think a bit more about that as I go to my 40th high school reunion. But it was a very big deal in the mid 70s to consider assimilation and integration at length. It was clear among myself and my peers that we should not suffer for those social issues that seemed irreconcilable to our parents. It was, in fact, easy enough to understand (both, multiple) mainstream cultures and fit in. What was the point of having a foreign language requirement if you weren't going to speak? What was the point of having black literature if you didn't expect everyone to read it? What was the point of having black music on the radio if you didn't expect everyone to get up and boogie? And the fact of the matter was, there were many (overenthusiastic) white liberals who were also down for the formula. So there was a kind of pressure to accept Lionel punk-ass Ritchie as a role model even if you preferred George funky-ass Clinton. So even a partial and false semi-integration was preferable to isolation and segregation. Not everyone was liberal or willing to share culture, but wasn't that the same problem that they had at Animal House? The difficulty was and remains that the mainstream liberals aren't sure themselves if they are accepting inferiority or superiority. Ultimately, Howard Cosell called Muhammad Ali by his proper name and accepted his superiority. And it rolls like that. Now you have open competition and an opportunity to raise the flag with your own hands, no matter where they came from.
In all cases, you cannot be beating somebody over the head with your self-righteousness, because if you were all that, why bother with the mainstream at all? If you can't give, then you can't take. So what's the difference between your self-righteous discrimination and anyone else's?
Of course the (knee jerk) answer is power, but nobody wanting mainstream acceptance is really playing a power game. They are playing bourgeois crossover games, and the American bourgeois has no real power. Which is why nobody really cares about married gays and the country hasn't changed because they exist.
I don't think anarchists or atheists have the benefit of hitchhiking on a crossover archtype like Lionel Ritchie. I think they are just inter-sectional out the wazoo and wind up being ultimately individuals. Thus they have to get along on their own merit without having a round hole to hide in. It's courageous as anything, but at some level you have to represent something larger than yourself, or be Muhammad Ali.