It sounds like you are writing in present tense about racism among musicians, and I'd agree. But when discussing the origins of Blues, Bluegrass etc we are looking back at times when some poor whites gathered into lynch mobs, while all poor blacks knew they could be hanged for associating too closely with whites, rich or poor. So back when blacks got lynched and created the Blues, they might not have had poor mountain folk bringing banjos to their music gatherings. Eventually Blues got recognized, recorded, played on radio, and assimilated into other music genres before the lynchings stopped. But even when Blues was identified and named, there was still plenty of racism separating white culture from black culture in America. And still more time to pass before Blues hit radio and became well known to whites. What I was suggesting, and I could be wrong, was that Gospel in churches might have been a more accessible music performance by blacks to white listeners than Blues in juke joints. Even if not attending the same churches, Gospel music would likely flood the street on a Sunday morning where whites could hear it, and it was the Lords work. Juke joints or wherever the first Blues was performed was probably not in the face and ear of the white community, and if heard, was probably considered the Devils work. Just sayin' long as we're talkin'. WRT the "Machiavellian strategy", it has been written that the poorest of the poor whites were given some sense of pride in the fact that at least they were not black. So I'd agree with your suggestion that keeping the poor fighting amongst themselves might have suited a bigger more sinister agenda. If there was ever anything sinister in our history. We are discussing history here, I believe. What was the Blues born of? What is the Blues made of? Struggle?