There are some many thoughtful (and disparaging) analyses out there...

From Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic:
- Why 'Accidental Racist' Is Actually Just Racist

I can understand why an artist like Paisley would be attracted to an artist like LL Cool J. I can't for the life of me understand why he'd choose LL Cool J to begin "a conversation" to reconcile. Rap is overrun with artists who've spent some portion of their career attempting to have "a conversation." There's Chuck D. There's Big Daddy Kane. There's KRS-ONE. There's Talib. There's Mos Def. There's Kendrick Lamar. There's Black Thought. There's Dead Prez. And so on.

In an artform distinguished by a critical mass concerned with racism, LL's work is distinguished by its lack of concern. Which is fine. "Pink Cookies" is dope. "Booming System" is dope. "I Shot Ya" is dope. I even rock that "Who Do You Love" joint. But I wouldn't call up Talib Kweli to record a song about gang violence in L.A., and I wouldn't call up KRS-ONE to drop a verse on a love ballad. The only real reason to call up LL is that he is black and thus must have something insightful to say about the Confederate Flag.

The assumption that there is no real difference among black people is exactly what racism is. Our differences, our right to our individuality, is what makes us human. The point of racism is to rob black people of that right. It would be no different than me assuming that Rachel Weisz must necessarily have something to say about black-Jewish relations, or me assuming that Paisley must know something about barbecue because he's Southern.

- Against the 'Conversation on Race'

One of the problems with the idea that America needs a "Conversation On Race" is that it presumes that "America" has something intelligent to say about race. All you need do is look at how American history is taught in this country to realize that that is basically impossible.

I have had conversations with very well-educated people who, with a straight face, have told me that there are Black Confederates. If you ask a very well educated person how the GI Bill exacerbated the wealth gap, or how New Deal housing policy helped create the ghetto they very likely will not know. And they do not know, not because they are ignorant, stupid, or immoral, they do not know because they are part of country that has decided that "not knowing" is in its interest. There's no room for any sort of serious conversation when the basic facts of history are not accessible. ...

Paisley could have reached out and had a conversation with an artist who might actually challenge his worldview. ...

But acts would require a mind interested in something more than being told what it already knows. It would require an artist doing his job and exploring. It would require truly engaging a community, instead of haughtily lecturing it on how, precisely, it should react to great pain. It would require something more than mere reification. It would require something more than absolution. It would require talking to people who may not like you. It would require the rarest of things in this space where everyone wants to write, but no one wants to read--a truly curious mind.

From Alyssa Rosenberg at ThinkProgress:
What Brad Paisley And LL Cool J Don't Understand About Accidents In "Accidental Racist"

Most definitions of "accident" require that an incident that fits that description meet two criteria: that the event in question be both unintended and unforseeable. And it's characteristic of our conversations about race that when someone causes offense, they insist that they aren't culpable because their actions or speech were unintended, ignoring the question of possible foresight. It's a means of defending yourself that puts responsibility for offense on the person who is offended, painting them as paranoid, suspicious, and generally lacking in good faith, and that allows people who are careless about race to avoid actual responsibility for hurting others. And it's a defense that would be impossible for most people to make if they stepped back and weighed the question of whether, despite their intentions, their actions or speech could be foreseen to cause harm or summon up painful history.

Kim Ruehl at No Depression:
- When well-meaning topical music goes terribly wrong

What Paisley perhaps intended was to create a song which presented a conversation between White and Black, about letting go of the past and finding common ground to move forward as a unified front toward a more peaceful world.

What he wound up doing was writing a song which oversimplified one of the most violent and oppressive histories on American soil (overshadowed only by the way emerging white power in the New World treated - and continue to regard - Native Americans).

What he wound up doing was sounding as though he believes it's unfair for human beings now to bear the burden of history.

As a songwriter, Kim Ruehl has lots more to say from that perspective that might interest Mudcatters.

~ Becky in Long Beach