While entirely different in content, format, and narrative, there are notable similarities to be drawn between Episode VII of Ken Burns’ Country Music docuseries, and the Autobiography of Malcolm X. The most notable of them pertains to how racial tension/division should or can be ameliorated. Regarding country music, a genre known for its diversity of influences and symbolic breaking of social barriers, Willie Nelson states that “the lines are imaginary… you have to put ‘em there” (Burns 0:05:15). This reflects a willingness to accept the fusion of ideas across time, and the transfer/introduction of new styles, sounds, themes, audiences, etc. Conceptually, it is an argument that parallels a model of broad integration/openness. Concerning culture, race, and identity, Malcolm X seems to occupy the other end of the spectrum.
Akin to certain elements of Marxist doctrine, albeit less atheistically derived, Malcolm X believes in an ever-present power struggle between oppressor and oppressed. He rejects the notion of integration, criticizing peaceful demonstrations like the March on Washington, which he describes as a “circus” of should-be “revolutionists swinging their bare feet together with their oppressor” (Malcolm X 286). He also opines that the German Jews made their greatest mistake by interloping with the native German population. This contrast of whether or not cultures, races, religions, and/or nationalities should interact begs a variety of difficult questions. Is complete cross-cultural, intersectional harmony too idealistic? Are there inherent power structures that are destined to continue their existence unless revolutionary action is taken? How static is identity across time, and is identity shaped above all else by immutable characteristics?
Towards the beginning of Episode VII, this concept is labeled, and aptly so, as a “paradox that’s always existed in country music” soon after asking “How much change do you embrace, and how much change can you make before completely obliterated what you were, and where you came from?” (Burns 0:04:50). This reveals the perpetual tug-of-war between change and continuity. Change is an inevitability, however; the problem is being able to discern between implosion and adaptation — often a fine, nuanced line with brilliant people advocating both sides. If anything, for me, this highlights the crucial nature of open discourse, a pillar of American identity enshrined in our founding documents. It is the most inclusive, thorough, and transparent means of making the aforementioned distinction between what constitutes decay versus progress. It allows questions to be posed and pondered regarding national, unified identity, and what ought to be prioritized.
Leave a Reply