I think you might actually be more chill with the Jedi than you think, OP. Mostly because the vast majority of what you've said here is directly contradicted by canon and by George Lucas himself. There are tons of other people who've put time into creating much better and more researched posts about all of these topics, and I'll link several of them below. But TLDR: Pretty much every single claim you've made here is very easily debunked when you look at scripts and George Lucas interviews.
1. The Jedi steal children from their families and erase their cultures
The stealing kids thing is Sith propaganda. Like it's in universe propaganda that Sidious canonically made up, specifically to justify the Jedi's genocide. The only ones who are shown to canonically steal children are the Sith. There's a whole arc where Sidious recruits Cad Bane to steal Force-sensitive children to abuse and brainwash into becoming Sith. There's no corresponding arc for the Jedi.
All of the examples we see of Jedi taking in Force-sensitive children involve the family making that decision. Ahsoka's family are the ones who contact the Jedi after she displays Force sensitivity. The interaction is painted in a joyous, positive light, for a reason.
Shmi is the one who asks Qui-Gon if he can help Anakin and make him a Jedi. There's a comic where Mace finds out a family wants their kid back, and he gives the child back as soon as he realizes; @gffa has posted about it & has also done a larger review of the Jedi's canon attitudes towards kids here. There's an entire planet that told the Jedi to stop coming and that they wouldn't give up their kids, so the Jedi don't go there anymore. Roo-Roo Page was a Force-sensitive Gungan who was kidnapped by Sidious, and there was an entire arc of The Clone Wars where the Jedi rescued her and returned her to her family. We also have dialogue from the Kenobi series that explicitly equates the process of children joining the Jedi Order to Leia being adopted by Bail and Breha Organa, and describes said Order as their "family."
And we see so many Jedi who are still connected with their cultures. Ki-Adi-Mundi has a whole ass family with multiple wives and loads of kids because the Jedi wanted to help him keep his species and culture from dying out. We see Jedi like Depa Billaba, Luminara Unduli, and Barriss Offee wearing traditional marks and garb of their cultures:
@smhalltheurlsaretaken also has a post here where they point out how Barriss has a statue that she meditates to, likely a Miralan one. And that the doors of her quarters are decorated with Miralan markings:
So it's not just personal garb that Jedi use to express and connect to their cultures. They incorporate their unique cultures into their meditations and their living spaces as well.
If we compare the Jedi Order to the Empire, we'll get a better idea of just how culturally diverse the Jedi are. Look at these two pictures:
And you tell me which one looks like it's suppressing individuality and culture. Hint: It's not the Jedi. Note that there are no non-humans in the picture of the Empire, while the Jedi are actually one of the most species-diverse groups shown in Star Wars canon.
2. The Jedi do not allow emotion
Jedi are told to be mindful of their emotions, which as you know, means paying MORE attention to them, not less. It means noticing them, identifying them, and letting them flow and change over time. Noticing the contents of the river and letting it pass unobstructed, and all that.
The Jedi are highly empathetic and very in tune with both their emotions and other's emotions. @smhalltheurlsaretaken has a great series of examples of the Jedi being affectionate with themselves and others. They are far from cold and unfeeling.
Anakin is not discouraged from feeling anger; he is discouraged from acting upon it in the heat of the moment, especially in his capacity as first a diplomat and later a military leader. And the times we DO see him act on this anger, the outcomes are always awful!
He slaughters an entire tribe, including children who had no role in the thing he was angry about! He ignores people who are in danger, who are his responsibility! He chokes his pregnant wife out! He commits genocide!
And where does he end up, every time? Drowning in guilt, in horror, in disgust. Spiraling and catastrophizing and isolating himself from his loved ones. Acting on his anger isn't just harmful to others- it's harmful, deeply harmful, to Anakin.
Anakin's temper burns very brightly, but also seems to pass quickly. (The exact kind of thing DBT helps with, by the way...) When he refuses to let go of that anger and acts on it, he is at his worst and unhealthiest! Do you really think DBT supports acting on impulsive anger, especially when you're someone who gets violent when angry? I think not.
The Jedi are super powered space monks. With great power comes great responsibility. When you have the power to choke people out without even touching them, the power to hurl them through the air or kill them or brainwash them, your impulsive violence has a much higher capacity to harm than for a normal person. It's much more important to avoid acting on that anger, because as we see time and time again with Anakin, the effects are devastating. So, as the Jedi say: feel your anger, and then let it go before you hurt someone because of it. Again, this is the exact definition of mindfulness.
George Lucas has gone on the record SO MANY TIMES to explain that no, attachment is NOT a synonym for love. "Attachment" is a Buddhist concept, not just a random English word he decided to use because he thought it sounded cool. Attachment is specifically a scenario where your fear of losing the way someone makes you feel makes you possessive, to the point that you care more about that possession than about the person.
Most notably, George Lucas defines Anakin's later feelings (RotS-era) for Padme as attachment, something that specifically was unhealthy enough to turn Anakin to genocide. Anakin cared more about possessing Padme than he cared about what Padme wanted (hence Padme being distraught by what he did, rather than happy and grateful).
George Lucas contrasts this with Anakin's love for Luke, describing it as unconditional and NON attachment, as being what brought Anakin back to the light. @gffa has another great post citing various canon sources about attachment vs. unconditional love as George Lucas sees it here.
Because George Lucas defines "attachment" in the Buddhist sense, in this sense of clinging onto something to the point of hurting it, being unattached does not mean you don't feel emotions such as love. It doesn't mean you live this miserly, lonely existence. As George has explicitly stated:
@david-talks-sw has written loads more posts about this. I do suggest you read them all. They're heavily researched and based on canon + interviews and give a much better sense of George Lucas's intentions with regards to the Jedi. And overall, a better and more open-minded understanding of Buddhist philosophies, which the Jedi were based of off, will be helpful to you here. There are tons of resources on Buddhist thinking that are freely available online.
Also, I know this is a sticking point for a lot of people within the fandom, but this message of non-attached love being best isn't a uniquely Eastern concept. Western pop culture contains tons of examples of attachment being unhealthy and non-attachment being healthy. Think of the mother who refuses to let her daughter leave for college because she wants to have her around, but eventually realizes it's what's best for her and learns to let her go. Think of the girl who learns to dump her boyfriend because he refuses to allow her to make any male friends out of jealousy. We're inundated all the time with the message that loving someone often means letting them go if it's what's best for them. It's not a uniquely Jedi concept.
4. The Jedi don't have relationships
Just because most Jedi don't have relationships with biological family or with romantic partners doesn't mean they have no relationships at all. The Master-Padawan relationship is a great example of this, and we know that closeness is deliberately fostered by the Jedi. We also see plenty of examples of Jedi having friends (Obi-Wan with Bant and Quinlan, Ahsoka with Barriss). Children are raised communally, in groups:
And we see many, many examples of Jedi turning to elders throughout their community for support when they're struggling (I've lost count of how many times people have gone to Yoda for advice). We see that Ahsoka has a close relationship with elders in her community even outside of her relationship with her Master, like Plo Koon and Obi-Wan Kenobi.
These relationships are highly meaningful to her; she continues to respect and admire them in the Ahsoka series, which takes place many years later, after the Jedi have been mass genocided.
This kind of community-based support is incredibly common in non-American cultures, such as my own. My dad was largely raised communally, by other members of his village who weren't related to him; they are just as much considered a part of our family as his biological relatives are and he values his relationships with them immensely. This social structure is also very common in queer cultures, where historically queer folks have been disowned by their families and have had to create found families as a result. Where do you think the saying "it takes a village" comes from? Because psychologists recognize the importance of this exact kind of support.
If these types of non-traditional, non-Western community structures "don't count" to you, I'd suggest that you do some reflecting as to why. They're perfectly meaningful to literally billions of people around the world. Just because something might look different doesn't mean it's inferior to what you know. And it's frankly hurtful to people from the cultures (including queer cultures) for whom these relationships are incredibly meaningful to suggest otherwise.
5. Anakin's actions are entirely the Jedi's fault
My feelings on this are probably evident from the rest of this reblog, but I feel the need to point this out: Any line of reasoning that victim blames a culture who was genocided to near extinction is one you should think VERY carefully about. This line of thinking is pretty dangerous because it implies that a culture can do something to deserve genocide. There is nothing that anyone can do, EVER, to deserve genocide. Sure, maybe I'm sensitive about this sort of thing- but then again, having Jewish family does tend to make genocide a bit of a sore topic for people.
This line of thinking skirts far too close to anti-Semitic sentiments for my comfort; it's part of why I have a blog disclaimer asking y'all to stop adding them to my posts. I'm tired of having to repeatedly defend things that are meaningful to me and to so many others. We have existed for centuries, living quite happy and fulfilled lives for the most part, and we don't need to defend our worth to you just because you refuse to see it. If you want to talk about this sort of stuff, please do it elsewhere, and tag accordingly.
For the final time: Just because something looks unfamiliar to you doesn't mean it is worthless. The Jedi are based heavily off of real-world cultures, and it's good practice to be mindful that you don't fall into decades-old forms of bigotry when you're criticizing them. There are so many ways to criticize the Jedi that do not fall into these dangerous pitfalls of dismissing Buddhist cultures and blaming genocide victims. Please seek them out.
kianamaiart
romaincrisis
gamechangershow
discoholicmusic
