Sweet Home America

An Assessment of Blind Devotion

If you don't live in the state of Alabama, you should know that we play the song 'Sweet Home Alabama' on repeat, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. To be clear, I'm not complaining, disparaging, or making fun—though I’d prefer 'Tuesday's Gone' if given a choice from Lynyrd Skynyrd’s catalogue. The song is a cultural phenomenon that essentially serves as the state’s anthem. Most residents can recite the words by heart, even if the verses are simply filler for the chorus. However, fifty years after its release, it's possible to overlook that it was part of a musical feud rivaling Kendrick Lamar and Drake. Neil Young started the conflict with his songs 'Southern Man' and 'Alabama,' but Skynyrd delivered the knockout punch. While Young’s songs are relegated to deep tracks on classic rock radio stations, Ronnie Van Zant’s lyrics are screamed by 100,000 Crimson Tide fans on Saturdays in the fall at Bryant-Denny Stadium. Who won the battle is not in question.

As for why Young picked this fight, Alabama had garnered national attention with its governor, George Wallace, preaching a message of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” In 1968, Wallace made a presidential run that led Southern Democrats to leave the party, ultimately swinging the election for Nixon. Against this backdrop, Young described the realities of slavery, Jim Crow, racism, white supremacy, poverty, corruption, hypocrisy, etc. While Young’s intentions or tone can certainly be questioned, what he described is indisputable. However, his point didn’t matter. He bad-mouthed the state, and his name was immortalized for his transgression. Furthermore, Young was an outsider, one of those dreaded Canadians we are now told to hate until they become our 51st state. Therefore, the thought was that he had no business putting his nose where it didn’t belong.

You have to appreciate Van Zant’s protective instincts, right? Skynyrd’s song was akin to what you might hear on a school playground: “Don’t talk about my mama… I don’t care what you say, that’s my mama… and you don’t talk about her.” As someone with a mother, a wife, and kids, this notion of protecting loved ones against those who would attack them resonates—as I’m sure it does with most people. The fact that Van Zant loved his state (its terrain, its culture, its people, its football team, etc.) enough to defend it publicly from someone who dared malign it is understandable, even virtuous. Nevertheless, I do wonder if something is missing in his devotion.

Among those protective of their home against criticism, the expression “Love it or leave it” became popular during the 1960s. Similar to ‘Sweet Home Alabama,’ this notion found its way into song with Ernest Tubb and Merle Haggard both using the line in their lyrics. However, this expression wasn’t directed towards outsiders like Young, but towards other Americans—particularly those who protested the Vietnam War. The logic was simple: to be critical of the war implied a lack of affection for your country, and if you don’t have affection for your country, then you should go somewhere else. To be fair, the approach of many protestors was hateful, nihilistic, or revolutionary, especially as the conflict escalated. To working-class Americans, this behavior was a disgusting betrayal from its children who did not appreciate the great country they were blessed to be part of.

But was it really a fair indictment to say that anyone critical of the United States government or military just didn’t love their country? Watching the 10-part documentary ‘The Vietnam War’ by Burns/Novick, there were so many appalling aspects—from multiple administrations sending troops to fight in a war they acknowledged was unwinnable, to the Nixon campaign interfering in peace talks to undermine Hubert Humphrey’s election. However, the incident that stuck out to me was the My Lai massacre, where American soldiers executed over 500 civilians, including women, infants, and the elderly. Despite an initial cover-up, images were forced into the American consciousness that shifted public opinion of the war … and yet, after three years of investigation and trial, few cared anymore. One individual served as the scapegoat, and his sentence was commuted due to public outcry over the guilty verdict. To be sure, these events should not have been viewed as normative of our military, and the accusation of such was deeply offensive. However, to say that our collective actions were permissible simply because we are the ones doing them was also flawed. All this to say, those who protested the war weren’t necessarily pinko-commies worthy of deportation. Many loved their country and were afraid, shocked, and saddened by what it was becoming. It’s in that spirit that James Baldwin once said, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” For many, loving their country and being brutally honest about it wasn’t in conflict. In fact, it was required.

…bringing us back to Lynyrd Skynyrd. There is most certainly virtue in being devoted to the people and places we love, whether that devotion is manifested in writing a song or protecting it to the death. However, I’m not so sure about the virtue of blind devotion. The response to Mr. Young was essentially “$#&! off.” I can’t say that has no value, as it can silence detractors. What that reply doesn’t do, though, is actually defend the place against the critique or provide for any self-reflection that could make that place better. The problem with blind devotion is that the lover doesn’t necessarily value honesty—which any marriage book will tell you is necessary for a healthy relationship. In being honest about the object of one’s affection, that love can actually be enhanced. It’s one thing to love when one delusionally believes that the object of one’s affection can do no wrong. It is quite another to love with full knowledge of flaws. To appeal to holy writ, the Apostle Paul states that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Jesus’s sacrifice was not indifferent to the circumstances of those in dire straits; rather, he expressed his devotion with full knowledge of that reality.

Many like to criticize to make themselves feel intellectually superior, stir things up, and/or be a contrarian asshole … Perhaps that’s what Neil Young was. Those folks have their reward. I, like everyone, must evaluate the extent to which that is true of me. Nevertheless, it is also entirely possible and appropriate to be critical out of deep affection for the object of that love. It is for that reason that some (and hopefully more by the day) are being honest about what we as a nation are becoming. In abandoning our allies, siding with a murderous regime, threatening to invade others, creating a humanitarian crisis, denying people due process, cutting services to the lower class/poor, silencing dissenting speech, and a litany of other disgusting acts each and every day, we can no longer even pretend that we are the good guys anymore. In fact, that idea no longer appears to matter to us. Right and wrong seem to be thrown out the window, because if we are the ones doing it, then it must be okay. We can listen to Lee Greenwood sing ‘Proud to Be an American,’ but an appropriate question right now is ‘Why are we proud?’ To borrow again from scripture, “And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning?” It is shameful what we have become. May we not gloss over that with platitudes about patriotism, but instead, may we love our country enough to be honest about it. May we even be able one day to say, in the words of Lynyrd Skynyrd, that “the government is true” with a straight face.