@ Joe : Thanks for the response, though I'm sure that in reality people might exist between factions instead of being wholly with one or the other. Having said that where do you think does an individual's right to choose or refuse their past, embrace another's identity or completely reinvent an identity altogether seems like a valid proposition. I think that because all of these 'labels' are after all inventions at one time or another with little relevance barring the fact that at some point in time a group of people realized that because they now spoke the same language, dressed up in the same way, ate the same things, celebrated the same festivals, even looked similar in appearance - They should substantiate or rather christian (in a way!) those similarities by naming themselves such and such a thing hence how all these 'ethno-linguistic' identities were formed.
For example on my Dad's side I'm an ethnic Kashmir on my Mom's side I'm an ethnic Punjabi..now I know for a fact that neither of those two ethnic group's recorded history goes back beyond a few thousand years (lets pick 10,000 as a big round number !) so surely they must have been something else before that ? And if that is true then what would be irrational in say, myself, deciding that here on this day (03/08/2012) I decide that my identity would be that of a 'Newfoundlander' or that of a 'Bengali' and I'd learn all of the things that are traditionally considered the cornerstone of any such identity - language, unique cultural practices etc. The point I'm trying to make is that if these are, at the end of the day, mere 'conscious decisions' on part of any individual then would it seem irrational for a Person 'A' to decide that he'd like to be associated with Ethnicity 'B' instead of the one that he was born in ?
I'd like to add a little more to this as well : Joe, where or rather when do you think is a society radically changed enough for there to be a need for a 'reinvented' or at least 'new' identity ? Which is to say if someone's reference point in life that influences everything that one does from cradle to grave is so radically changed then does one still belong to the same demographic identity or does one have the right to call him/herself something different ? I am of course referring to the spread of Islam in the Indian subcontinent and how Islam by its very nature was both theologically and practically (though regrettably that resulted in a lot of blood spilled too !) different then the original faith and the way of life of the inhabitants of our subcontinent and in being embraced by whole swathes of the population (forcefully or otherwise...the adherence was there !) in some parts of the Indian subcontinent there was, I would assume, a paradigmatic shift in the collective consciousness of the society whereby in many things the rights of yesterday became the wrongs of today and vice versa...and things of a similar connotation. Do you think then would a community or a society be justified in evolving their identity from 'A' to 'Z', should they wish it ?
Of course, this wouldn't be applicable to the areas where a much more syncretic and less...*how should I put this*, theologically and practically confrontationalist Islam took root !
...
