Thread by @noone_pj

The idea that "White" as a racial label originated in Virginia to divide Celtic and African slaves is historically grounded.

https://twitter.com/EMichaelJones1/status/1962178733906735240

During the 17th century, colonial elites did indeed use racial distinctions to prevent solidarity among oppressed groups, such as indentured servants (many of whom were of Celtic or other European descent) and enslaved Africans.

By creating a hierarchy based on skin color, they fostered divisions that served their economic and social control interests. This tactic is a classic example of divide and conquer, aiming to weaken collective resistance by emphasizing superficial differences.

However, the claim that "White" is totally incompatible with European ethnicity-which is based primarily on language-overlooks the complex interplay between race, culture, and identity.

While European ethnicities (e.g., Germanic, Slavic, Romance) are indeed rooted in linguistic and cultural traditions, the concept of "Whiteness" in America evolved as a broader social and political category to unify diverse European groups under a shared racial identity.

This was partly a response to immigration waves and the need to assimilate groups like Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans into a dominant social hierarchy.

So, while "White" may not align perfectly with European ethnic distinctions, it has functioned as a pragmatic, though often arbitrary, racial construct in the U.S. context.

Now, regarding the triple melting pot: this theory, proposed by sociologist Will Herberg in the mid-20th century, suggests that American assimilation occurred not into a single "melting pot" but into three broad religious groupings: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish.

This framework acknowledges that religious identity often persisted even as ethnic distinctions blurred. Herberg argued that these religious labels became primary markers of identity, superseding older ethnic divisions among European immigrants.

Were labels like Catholic and Protestant are also divide and conquer tactics? From a historical perspective, religious divisions have indeed been used to foster conflict and control populations.

In Europe, the Protestant Reformation and subsequent wars (e.g., the Thirty Years' War) were fueled by elite manipulation of religious differences, often to consolidate power or divert attention from economic and political grievances.

In America, while religious identities were less explicitly weaponized in the same way as racial labels,

they still served to segment communities and occasionally perpetuate social hierarchies-for instance, anti-Catholic sentiment toward Irish and Italian immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

However, there's a key distinction: religious labels, unlike racial ones, are based on belief systems and practices that individuals can theoretically choose or change (though culture and upbringing heavily influence this).

Racial labels, by contrast, are imposed based on perceived biological traits and are largely immutable. Both can be tools of division, but racial divides have often been more rigid and violently enforced in American history.

From a perspective which values truth and acknowledges the manipulative tactics of elites, it's reasonable to view both racial and religious divisions as historically exploited for control.

The solution isn't to erase labels entirely-as group identities can be meaningful-but to foster a society where these distinctions don't dictate hierarchy or conflict.

For Christians, the ultimate unity is found in Christ, transcending earthly divisions (Galatians 3:28), though this doesn't negate the reality of cultural and ethnic distinctions.

• "White" as a label was indeed used to divide and conquer, but it also coalesced into a functional racial identity in America.

• European ethnicity is more nuanced, rooted in language and culture, but was often subsumed under racial categorizations in the U.S.

• Religious labels like Catholic and Protestant have also been used divisively, though they differ in their malleability and basis.

• Ultimately, all such divisions can be weaponized by elites, but acknowledging this is the first step toward resisting manipulation and fostering genuine community based on shared values and truth.

@threadreaderapp unroll