by Juan_Bottom on Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:53 am
I was just having a discussion about Neil Young's Southern Man & Alabama and Lynard Skynard's response to those two songs with Sweet Home Alabama this night past.
Skynard's song is a very poor defense of Alabama's Jim Crow laws. Now, granted, the meaning behind Ronnie Van Zant's lyrics of "now we all did what we could do" is supposedly unknown. But that's exactly why his line is supporting Jim Crow. If he was against segregation, he could have said so in the song, and owned up to the fact that some Southerners supported segregation, but not all do. But by leaving the line neutral, he's silently consenting to the practice. And he's allowing everyone to listen to it and interpret their own meaning... making the song just as friendly to racists as to civil right's activists. Van Zant later said that he didn't like what governor Wallace said about blacks, but the lyrics remain far too ambiguous for anyone listening to them to say that Van Zant himself wasn't consenting to segregation. I don't know if this was lost in the Southern Revival of the 70's or what, but this seems like a very obvious conclusion for me.
Neil Young might be generalizing with Southern Man and Alabama, but his songs hit the mark because they accuse all Southerners/Alabamans of the time of at least silently consenting to segregation. Skynard's ambiguous statements about Jim Crow and saying "well we don't need Neil young anyhow" is no response to Neil's scathing accusations.
That's my Yankee take.