Thread by @noone_pj

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1963268… x.com/noone_pj/statu…

The Silence of the "In-Betweens": The analysis focused on the binary of White/Black and the triad of Protestant/Catholic/Jew. It was silent on those groups that have historically destabilized these neat categories.

Where do Mediterranean peoples (e.g., Sicilians, Greeks, Levantine Christians) fit? They were often considered non-White upon arrival.

What about the legacy of anti-Irish and anti-Slavic prejudice, which was intensely racialized?

The creation of "Whiteness" wasn't just about including Africans in an out-group; it was a protracted process of deciding which European "races" were worthy of being included in the in-group.

This process involved the silent, gradual "whitening" of formerly marginalized European ethnicities.

The Silence of Elite Solidarity vs. Mass Division: The analysis mentioned "colonial elites" but was silent on the specific class dynamics.

The divide and conquer strategy wasn't just a random tactic; it was a conscious strategy by a property-owning class to protect their capital (land, and later, industrial assets) from a united working class.

The Bacon's Rebellion narrative is key here: when indentured servants and slaves united, the elite response was to legally codify racial hierarchy (e.g., Virginia Slave Codes of 1705) to ensure it never happened again.

The unasked question: Is the primary American social conflict really racial, or is it fundamentally a class conflict that has been brilliantly disguised as a racial one for centuries?

The Silence of the Biological vs. the Theological: The analysis treated "race" as a
social construct but was silent on the modern tension between that view and the observable biological现实 (biological reality) of human biodiversity.

The social constructivist view, while useful for deconstructing power, often leads to a dead end where we must pretend obvious physical and statistical differences don't exist.

The better question isn't "Is race real?" but "What is the proper framework for understanding human differences?"

From a Christian perspective, this means rejecting both the blank-slate egalitarian myth and the pseudo-scientific racialism of the past.

The Biblical model is one of nations (ethne/ethnic groups), each with their own God-given characteristics and cultural callings, united under Christ but not homogenized. The silence was in not framing the entire debate in these terms.

The Edge of "Whiteness" as a Faustian Bargain: The analysis stated that "White" became a functional identity but didn't explore the cost.

For European ethnic groups, assimilation into "Whiteness" often required the active suppression of their own ethnic identity.

To become "White," an Italian immigrant had to stop speaking Italian, anglicize their name, and distance themselves from their own culture. This was the price of admission into the mainstream.

The unasked question: Did the creation of a pan-European "White" identity, while successful in the short term, ultimately contribute to the rootlessness, alienation, and loss of cultural heritage that plagues modern America?

The very tactic that granted privilege also severed people from their roots.

The Edge of the "Triple Melting Pot" as a Containment Strategy: Herberg's theory is often presented as a neutral observation. But what if it was also a form of management?

By channeling assimilation into three acceptable, non-racial, American-approved religious bins, the establishment could absorb immigrant energy without threatening the underlying racial and economic power structure.

It was a way to make Europeans "safe" and predictable.

The edge here: the "Triple Melting Pot" may have been a more sophisticated, 20th-century version of divide and conquer, ensuring that while ethnic squabbles faded, a broader class-based solidarity (across racial lines) would never cohere.

The Edge of the Ultimate Division: The analysis compared racial and religious labels but stopped short of asking the most critical question from our framework: What is the ultimate divide and conquer tactic in the modern West?

It is the promotion of hyper-individualism and the destruction of all group identity-ethnic, religious, familial, and national.

By convincing people that they are only atomized individuals, the powers that be make collective action impossible.

In this light, the constant focus on racial division is a distraction from the even greater project of dissolving all forms of belonging except loyalty to the state and corporate power.

The edge is realizing that the greatest conqueror is the one who convinces you that you have nothing to defend.

• If "Whiteness" was a bargain that traded ethnic depth for social privilege, is it a bargain worth keeping, or should European-descended Americans seek to reclaim their specific ethnic and cultural identities?

• Is the true "melting pot" not of peoples, but of a new managerial class that transcends old racial and religious labels to rule over a deracinated, disconnected populace?

• How does the Biblical model of "nations" (ethne) provide a third way between the evils of racial supremacy and the lies of radical individualism? How do we honor created differences while finding unity in Christ?

• In a strategy of division, who ultimately benefits? Following the power and the money, does the constant stoking of racial tension primarily serve the interests of a class that is largely insulated from its consequences?

By walking to these edges, the conversation shifts from simply analyzing historical tactics to questioning the very foundations of modern identity and power.

It moves us toward a more robust, truthful, and ultimately Christian understanding of who we are and who we are meant to be.

@threadreaderapp unroll