For me, Ebbie, the question of why someone who claims to be non-violent, chooses to sing songs about violence, is an intriguing one, as many people seem to do it. Many singers will say the content or message of the song doesn't matter to them. Many singers will say the content or message of the song is the most important thing to them.

I agree with Gareth, that the song is quite ignorant in it's romanticized portrayal of vigilante justice and it's portrayal of lynching as an honorable act. I also agree with McGrath that this song can be read as a song with racist overtones, regardless of Keith's intentions as the composer. As McGrath says, songs take on lives of their own, and what the composer's original intent was, often becomes irrelevant. In this case, I believe Keith's song has taken on a life of it's own, and that the song is being viewed metaphorically by some people, as a nostalgic view on racial lynching and vigilante justice.

I have no problem with others saying they don't see the song as a nostalgic view on racial lynching, but rather, just on lynching in general, I can see and support their point of view. But what I don't trust, is people saying they can't see and support the point of view of people who see the song as having racist overtones. Because of the powerful association in the US of lynching with racial lynching, I really question the motives of people dismissing those who perceive this song in those terms. That sort of a double standard, which dismisses a racist interpretation outright, sounds like people sailing that river in Egypt to me.