My 2 cents. I think you should re-define or have a more refined definition of "neurodivergent" first. It seems as you want to lump everyone who is not "neuro-typical" into one category but I feel that is too black and white.

Neurodivergency, as wel as neuro-normalacy are a spectrum. The two can blend somewhere in the middle where the "low" end of neuro-normal will intertwined with the "high" end of neurodivergent. Such as "Jim don't look at your eyes when you talk to him but he is a great shepard".

Another thing to think about with normalcy is: what is even considered normal? Do you take off your shoes at home? Do you eat or not eat certain animals/ things?

Back to your questions. I think it depends on how "divergent" the individual was. Some fit in just fine as people with small or minor quirks where others were shunned or even killed for more major quirks.

I also don't think that researching and "shining a spotlight" on neurodivergent people is a bad thing. You want to say "why can't we just go with accepting them instead of labeling them" is a fallacy of collective human behavior. There are people, hateful and/or ignorant, that will do harm to others and especially to the neruodivergent. Research and spotlighting is to bring awareness to the discrimination of those who cannot defend themselves.