In the 1950s and 60s, minority groups around the country vehemently sought to assert their presence in the United States.

From blacks struggling to dismantle institutionalized racism, to the LGBTQ movement’s fight against police brutality and censure of public sexuality displays, to women of color fighting for a place within the broader, white-dominated feminist movement, to Chicanos and Chicanas in the western United States pushing to reclaim lost and abject histories — aggrieved population groups have historically tried to gain both lawful and cultural inclusion in this country or, at the very least, equal regard and equitable social policies.

The hindrances impeding social movements stem from two major sources. The first hindrance was, and still is, a push back from dominant culture, which has suppressed the more “radical” facets of minoritized groups’ political mandates (i.e. any aspect of a group’s platform that threatens to dismantle the basic principles of white cultural dominance).

The second hindrance stems from disunity within any given oppositional cultural movement. For instance, the ideological divide between figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X during the black civil rights movement over how to address racial oppression — peacefully or through separatist opposition, respectively — resulted in factionalism ultimately suppressed by various repressive state apparatuses (i.e. the FBI).

Although black militant politics and iconography have largely been discredited as “too extreme” and “threatening,” in the current political moment, assimilation and redress through proper judicial channels seems, for many activists, a futile exercise. As the 2012 presidential election approaches, refuge in either political party becomes less and less of an option for minoritized groups.

In his recent State of the Union address, President Barack Obama strategically embraced centrist politics to demonstrate his willingness to work with Republican adversaries. Obama rhetorically framed his speech around military imagery, effectively erasing the importance of cultural diversity through the metaphor of military service. He asserted, “When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight.”

Obama’s right. When policymakers send troops overseas to fight in wars with questionable aims, mortality takes precedence over skin color and political ideology. However, by universalizing humanity using our potential to die as a distinct shared quality, the president cryptically glosses over our differences — the things that make us unique but that also have pushed some groups out of the realm of the humane (i.e. disabled folks, transgender folks, black folks and so forth).

The Republican presidential hopefuls similarly offer no refuge for minoritized groups struggling for civil rights. During the Jan. 23 debate in Tampa, Fla., both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich expressed support for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act, with the caveat that it be altered to offer a road to citizenship only through military service — not education. Their rhetoric conjures memories of the 1940s Bracero Program, which allowed Mexican immigrant workers to temporarily relocate to this country during the World War II labor shortage and placed labor above human compassion and fair treatment.

The need for grassroots coalitional politics has never been greater than it is today. As the differences between Democrats and Republicans become ever starker, the need to watch out for ourselves becomes increasingly important. The Occupy movement is one in what will hopefully be a long line of political mobilizations to emphasize the need to operate outside of a system that obfuscates the differences among cultural groups and treats us as if we were all a part of one group — the dreaded “Other.”

Michael Casiano is a senior American studies and English major. He can be reached at casiano@umdbk.com.