One interesting difference is that all the groups you mentioned succeeded in forming their own independent countries which they now control as the dominant grou

One interesting difference is that all the groups you mentioned succeeded in forming their own independent countries which they now control as the dominant group, after the period of oppression in question: modern Israel, Cambodia, Bulgaria. I wonder what the achievement rates look like for groups for which that isn't the case, who still live in a country controlled by another group? For example, Kurds in Turkey. If we take Israel as an example, the way post-Holocaust Jews empowered themselves to fix their own oppression was to create a new country they controlled, win a war of independence defending it, and then emigrate there en masse. A parallel philosophy has at times also been popular among Black Americans, in that case known as Black Nationalism or Afro-Nationalism (subtly different terms depending on the focus), i.e. that Black Americans should control their own destiny in their own country, which requires, as a prerequisite, declaring independence from white-controlled America. But that movement has not been successful, in part because of the lack of any agreement on where the country would be located (various locations in both North America and Africa have been proposed), and in part because the Integrationist philosophy, holding that Black Americans are Americans, not a separate nation, has eclipsed Afro-Nationalism in popularity. There have been experiments in setting up an African-American state in Africa (Liberia), and also attempts to set up Black-controlled enclaves within the United States (one of the goals of the Black Panther movement), but they have been mostly unsuccessful. Actually the viewpoints of the Black Panthers on cultural cohesion and healthy communities sound not too different from what you've been mentioning in this thread.