Shaboozey's side-eye at the AMAs was him reckoning with his place in country music
Megan Moroney was sincere when she said that the Carter Family "basically invented country music" during the American Music Awards broadcast on Monday, May 26.
First, she was likely reading from a script, the exact lines she was meant to recite scrolling on a teleprompter in front of her. And second, she is a country artist from Georgia, a country girl with country roots, and one of the brightest new faces of country music.
It makes sense, then, that she regurgitated one of the industry's favorite talking points: That country music was born of Jimmie Rogers and those famous Carters. That everyone else is merely a derivative, expected to pay incessant homage to the originals who recorded in those Bristol sessions nearly 100 years ago.
But there was Shaboozey, standing alongside Moroney, side-eyeing and smirking and no doubt thinking about the Black man who made the Carter Family's success possible.
Back in February 2024, right after Beyoncé dropped 'Texas Hold 'Em' and '16 Carriages,' the first two tracks from her 'Cowboy Carter' album, I wrote about the significance of her collaborations with Black creatives—what I saw as an echo of sorts to A.P. Carter's reliance on Riddle:
It was Riddle who guided A.P. Carter on a tour of Black Appalachia, gathering songs from the folk singers and bluesmen dotting the area, musicians who married their unique guitar stylings with distinctly Black melodies and cadences. While A.P. wrote down the lyrics, Riddle memorized everything else, using his own guitar to make beautiful music. When A.P. and Riddle reconnected with Sara and Maybelle, Riddle often tweaked the songs they'd gathered to perfectly suit the Carters' recordings.
I also noted that, while there is periodic emphasis on Black artists breaking through industry barriers, less can be said for Black songwriters, musicians, and producers. The creatives aren't just skipped over by white artists—Black artists pass them over too.
Call it an attempt to assimilate or flat-out ignorance, but celebrating a handful of Black artists who attempt to build country music careers while refusing to acknowledge other Black creatives isn't just bad for the industry. It's also bad for the community of Black songwriters, musicians, and producers whose dreams can only be realized through artist collaboration.
Which is what makes Shaboozey's AMAs reaction so important.
Opinion: Nashville is complicit in country music's diversity problem and leaders need to step up
With his raised eyebrows and slight chuckle, Shaboozey didn't just cast doubt on country music's century-old fiction. He also acknowledged the Black creatives who will never stand at the front of a stage or sing into a mic—but who are important, and influential, all the same.
It just took Shaboozey a little while to get there.
In May 2024, fellow Black country (and 'Cowboy Carter'-featured) artist Willie Jones called out the all-White cast of the video for Shaboozey's record-setting smash 'A Bar Song (Tipsy).'
Jones said Shaboozey was 'a fly in a milk bowl' in his own video, and despite the cavalcade of voices that determined Jones was simply a 'hater' and jealous of Shaboozey's success, I agreed with the optics' downsides.
And I noted how Shaboozey's casting decisions were a reflection of the way things have always been done in country music, particularly for Black artists who hope to follow in Charley Pride's assimilationist footsteps:
An industry that allows for only sporadic, individual Black successes is one that never truly evolves. It, instead, waits for the next Black artist willing to play the game and follow suit, the artist who will proclaim that their Blackness is a safe kind of Blackness, that it is, in fact, the only Blackness needed.
That same month, an interview with Essence Magazine seemed to reinforce Shaboozey's willingness to adhere to Nashville's racial rules—or, at best, his ignorance of their existence and impact.
'When I got into the space there wasn't too much representation,' he said. 'You've obviously got Darius Rucker, Jimmy Allen, and Mickey Guyton, and Charlie [sic] Pride, all these people. But that's not a lot if you compare that pot of how many hip-hop artists there are, R&B artists. You go to country music, it's about four or five. And then as far as new ones go, it's again not that many.'
A Lesley Riddle nod would've been great there—not to negate the reality that there weren't many Black country artists visible in the mainstream, but, rather, to explain why that is. It would've been great for him to speak to the creatives whose careers were stunted, not for lack of will or effort but because of the industry's refusal to support them.
Opinion: Jelly Roll's success shows country music should embrace more unconventional artists
Maybe then he would've opened his arms wide to Black collaborators, lifting them as he climbed the charts, the same way Beyoncé did for him.
But it's entirely possible that Shaboozey just didn't know—that he, like Moroney, had sipped too long on the country music Kool-Aid, accepting long-told lies as truths. After all, in that same interview, he said that he 'didn't realize how tough it was going to be to get acceptance' in the genre.
I'm sure Shaboozey's massive success with 'A Bar Song' initially skewed his perspective, that with his rapid ascent and crossover appeal, he likely assumed he'd cracked the code on the industry's artificial Whiteness.
I've talked to enough Black folks around country music (as well as White women, who face their own gendered barriers in the format) to know that the same egocentrism that draws artists to music industry careers also inhibits their ability to see deep-seated issues as structural, rather than circumstantial.
But it is said that experience is the best teacher, and I'm willing to bet that's the case here, too.
Maybe, for Shaboozey, it was being shut out of awards from both the Country Music Association and Academy of Country Music, despite the unprecedented success of 'A Bar Song.' Maybe it was the realization that landing at number one, and staying there for months, wouldn't guarantee radio support for subsequent records.
Or maybe it was the understanding that, despite his impact on country music, Shaboozey may very well end up like Lesley Riddle—largely unacknowledged, without even a Country Music Hall of Fame induction by which to remember him.
Either way, we're here now. And for all the ignorance Shaboozey displayed at the outset of his country music career, he finally saw fit to set the record straight on the true origins of country music, on who's been here before and deserves to be here now.
And to that I say: Better late than never.
Andrea Williams is an opinion columnist for The Tennessean and curator of the Black Tennessee Voices initiative. She has an extensive background covering country music, sports, race and society. Email her at adwilliams@tennessean.com or follow her on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @AndreaWillWrite and BlueSky at @andreawillwrite.bsky.social.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Shaboozey AMAs side-eye shows Black erasure in country music | Opinion
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination.
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. | Opinion This Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the laws on discrimination apply to everybody equally. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn't matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they've been discriminated against. On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. The news media covering this decision has widely referred to it as a 'reverse discrimination' case, but that shows their understanding of discrimination is wrong. The unanimous decision from the court in this case is correct and offers valuable lessons for how the left needs to rethink its group politics. Reverse discrimination isn't a thing. There is only discrimination. The ruling overturns a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a "majority group" in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Essentially, the lower court established different criteria for determining whether a single person had a valid discrimination case against an employer, compared with a person who was part of the majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, sending the case back to a lower court. Opinion: Trump abandons his most impressive presidential legacy ‒ conservative judges Different rules based on different groups is precisely the kind of discrimination that American law prohibits. This is the spirit of all of American anti-discrimination law, including the relevant statute in this case, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on all sorts of characteristics. The only test in cases of discrimination should be if you prove you were discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. If yes, you have a case. If not, you don't. There is no need to consider whether somebody is even a part of a minority group, or even how their discrimination plays into any sort of broader civil rights struggle. In this case, because the plaintiff was straight, the lower court added an additional burden for her to prove discrimination than if a gay person had filed an identical suit. Title VII provides far more detail on how one proves discrimination than my haphazard framework, but the spirit is the same in that there is no mention of one's group status being a determining factor. 'As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the unanimous decision. This case is a promising step, but legal neutrality on characteristics is not a consensus In the decision at issue, the court reached consensus, with all nine justices signing on to Justice Jackson's opinion. While unanimous decisions are not uncommon, what is interesting about this case is that the liberal justices have signed on to an approach typically favored by conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for constitutional colorblindness, and the reality is that American law treats all characteristics equally in its application of laws. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court This very issue divided the nation's highest court into its respective ideological leanings just two years ago, when Students for Fair Admissions won against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, resulting in affirmative action admissions practices being outlawed nationwide. In that very decision, Justice Jackson authored a fiery dissent against the colorblind approach of the majority opinion. While that case deals with race and this one deals with sexual orientation, any protected characteristic should be viewed the same. Decisions like these make Justice Jackson's jurisprudence all the more frustrating. The same principles that demand neutrality of the law in some areas are suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to affirmative action. I hope that the recent case is a genuine change of heart from Justice Jackson and the other liberal justices, but I fear that this case is just another puzzling inconsistency from the court's junior justice. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.


Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Education Secretary Linda McMahon Didn't Know About The Tulsa Race Massacre When Asked About ‘Illegal DEI' In Education
Source: The Washington Post / Getty Here's a question: Is there literally anyone in President Donald Trump's cabinet who is actually qualified for the position they have been appointed to? I ask because it appears that all of the highest offices in America (including the presidency) are being run by people who don't know things. We have a Homeland Security secretary who failed to correctly define habeas corpus; a Health and Human Services secretary who takes his grandchildren with him to swim in toxic sewage and has declared that people shouldn't take medical advice from him; a Secretary of Defense who has a remedial grasp on who our foreign allies are and can't seem to get it through his head that Signal group chats are not appropriate platforms to discuss confedential war plans on; a tech CEO who recently left the Department of Government Efficiency because it became more and more clear he didn't know what he was doing (Elon won't admit it, but that's why), and a host of other administrators who appear to be clueless when it comes to the thing they're supposed ot be experts in. This brings us to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the former pro wrestling mogul who somehow got appointed as the highest educational authority in the nation, despite her apparent ignorance of American history, specifically Black history, and, even more specifically, the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921. During a congressional hearing on Wednesday, McMahon was pressed by Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) to clarify which history lessons would be considered 'illegal DEI' under the Trump administration, which has made it a top priority to do all it can to ban diversity initiatives into 'woke' oblivion under the guise of promoting meritocracy — despite being, observably, the most woefully underqualified federal administration in recent history. Lee's inquiry turned into an impromptu quiz on Black history, which McMahon embarrassingly failed. 'Would it be 'illegal DEI' for a lesson plan on the Tulsa Race Massacre?' Lee asked McMahon. 'I'd have to get back to you on that,' McMahon said. 'Do you know what the Tulsa Race Massacre is?' Lee asked. 'I'd like to look into it more and get back to you on it,' McMahon replied. The Tulsa Race Massacre — in which hundreds of residents in the affluent Black town of Tulsa, Oklahoma, were lynched and had their homes and businesses destroyed by a massive white mob — happened more than a century ago, but don't worry, guys, sooner or later the highest educational authority in the land will learn about it, and then she'll get back to us on wheter it should be illegal to teach it. Also, Ruby Bridges, we're going to have to give McMahon some time on her story, too. 'How about the book 'Through My Eyes,' by Ruby Bridges, for instance?' Lee asked. 'I haven't read that,' McMahon responded. 'Have you learned about Ruby Bridges?' Lee said. 'If you have specific examples, you'd like to…' McMahon responded before Lee cut her off to note, 'That was a specific example… I named a specific book.' Besides the fact that a federal education secretary should be more well-versed on these subjects, this is simply what happens when Trump has white people out here deciding how much Black history is too much Black history. McMahon didn't know anything about the most well-known race riot in American history, and she didn't appear to know much (if anything) about the first Black student to attend a desegregated school in Louisiana — but she's the authority on which Black history subjects constitute 'illegal DEI'? (Also, how TF would Black history, or any history for that matter, fall under the DEI label at all. It's almost as if this administration is so racist that any curriculum that doesn't center white historical figures and events needs to be spot-checked to see if it passes the white fragility smell test, or else it gets slapped with the label that has become white America's favorite new racial slur.) Anyway, Lee has been appropriately unkind while ripping McMahon and the Trump administration for their anti-DEI propaganda, which is only made worse through their glaring lack of historical knowledge (or knowledge about anything, honestly). 'Even if Secretary McMahon was better versed in American history, there is no doubt her department would further attempt to whitewash history and ensure students don't have access to the facts,' Lee told The Grio, adding that the Trump administration's 'lack of knowledge, denial of history, and open racism' doesn't mean students across the country 'should be deprived of learning opportunities or access to a quality education.' Lee had smoke for the Trump administration during Wednesday's congressional session, too. 'When [you] call for removing of equity and inclusion and diversity and accessibility from schools in favor of 'traditional American values,' it's indistinguishable from … post-Civil War South advocating to rewrite history with the Lost Cause narrative [and] to censor truths about slavery,' she said. 'This department's financial aid policies harken back to a time when higher education was reserved for affluent, well-connected and predominantly white students.' Exactly! SEE ALSO: Trump's Job Corps 'Pause' Is MAGA's Plan To Eliminate Poor Youth MIT Becomes Latest University To Back Away From DEI Initiatives SEE ALSO Education Secretary Linda McMahon Didn't Know About The Tulsa Race Massacre When Asked About 'Illegal DEI' In Education was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE


Black America Web
4 hours ago
- Black America Web
Op-Ed: Care For Constituents Or Chaos? Medicaid Cuts Will Devastate All Of Us
Source: Jemal Countess / Getty In our country, which has so much abundance, poverty shouldn't be a death sentence. However, proposed cuts to Medicaid will cause many individuals, families and communities to suffer for that very reason–poverty. Significant and potentially massive cuts to Medicaid will cause irreparable harm. Shockwaves will reverberate in rural, urban, and suburban communities, and impact individuals, working families, many of our most fragile elderly and our most vulnerable young and disabled. I offer this perspective as a public health practitioner. I have spent my career supporting and advancing health systems in our country, across Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, and in our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., Medicaid supports our workforce and health systems (hospitals and clinics), in addition to individuals, families, and communities Medicaid provides insurance to people with low incomes and people who have disabilities. This includes many individuals who work, but still don't work jobs with health insurance, work part-time, or don't make enough to cover insurance. It is the nation's single largest health insurance program. And it is wildly popular. More than 96% of Americans believe the program is important in their communities and recent national polls from January 2025 found that 80% of Americans have a favorable view of Medicaid. Some may wonder if I am overreacting. I'm not. More than 70 million Americans receive health care coverage under the Medicaid program. In Louisiana, where I live, one-third of our adult population is on Medicaid, and the percentage of coverage is even higher in rural areas. In fact, Medicaid plays a much larger role in covering rural communities in Louisiana and across our country than it does in metro/areas. In other parts of the South, like rural Kentucky, more than 40% of the population is on Medicaid. These individuals, like all of us, want nothing more than to live healthy and thriving lives while making ends meet for their families and making their children's futures more prosperous. The public may envision people on Medicaid as unworthy of receiving assistance. But there is no one profile of a Medicaid recipient. They come from all backgrounds, all races and ethnicities, all ages and all communities. In fact, most low-income Americans, whether rural or urban, Black or White, Republican or Democrat, share an economic fate impacted by hardship, and the solution to their support and prosperity is also shared. For instance, 'The number of people earning less than $25,750 for a family of four is rising in both Republican and Democratic districts, and across racial and geographic lines.' It's also important to understand the range of services people receive from Medicaid. Services include everything from general health services, to behavioral health (mental health and substance use) services, disability services, maternal health supports and more. Impacts across all of these areas could be devastating with federal and state cuts to beneficiaries or benefits. For example, maternal health outcomes, particularly maternal mortality, continue to devastate families and communities across our country. Louisiana had the nation's fourth-highest maternal mortality rate in 2021 at 60.9 deaths per 100,000 births, but I know this is not just a Louisiana problem; it's a national one. The March of Dimes reported that '870 maternal deaths occurred each year…and every year 50,000 women experience a life-threatening complication (sometimes called a near-miss)' or severe maternal health complication. With such high risk, good coverage and high-quality care is more important than ever, and over 42% of all births in our country are covered by Medicaid. Reducing these Medicaid benefits would be disastrous to mothers, babies and families. Chancing the lives of mothers and babies is simply too risky! While I referenced maternal health, Medicaid supports the existence of healthier communities. Beyond the immediacy of illness, sick people can't work, study, or play. They can't contribute to their families, our communities, and the country's economy—from kids, to employers, to the GDP, everyone loses. Our nation's health systems, from rural health centers to large urban hospital systems receive critical funding to cover the millions of peoples seeking care. The healthcare sector, one of the most important sectors of our economy overall, relies heavily on Medicaid reimbursement to sustain jobs and services. Cuts of great magnitude will threaten clinics, hospitals and medical providers. We will see the impacts of this immediately in rural regions with the shuttering of services, significant job losses, and further diminishing already challenged access to care. With health care shortages already existing, our conversations need to be continued around closing the gaps in access, not creating new chasms. Now more than ever, we need our leaders and legislative champions to protect our communities and their health and well-being! Given the adverse impact Medicaid cuts would have on the nation, we need to boldly reject proposals that will weaken the program and impact all of our communities. Given its importance, some may wonder why elected leaders would want to cut the program. Some legislators propose cutting Medicaid as part of a broader plan to give $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. Others want to lower the federal deficit, a $1.1 trillion deficit at the end of February 2025. Policymakers should not attempt to bring down federal spending with ill-conceived strategies that will only add to Americans' suffering. They should instead think strategically about taxation. Legislators can bring a great deal of confidence in their leadership by examining other alternatives to drastic Medicaid cuts, by reminding us that they care for all of their constituents, and that they are creating a vision for a healthier future based on their community's needs—timely doctors' visits, healthy births, high quality mental health care and substance use supports—not disregarding, or even worse targeting the thing that keeps us safe and well. Shelina Davis is the Chief Executive Officer of the Louisiana Public Health Institute. SEE ALSO: 'We All Are Going To Die': Joni Ernst's Chilling Defense Of Medicaid Cuts Sparks Outrage At Iowa Town Hall The Midnight Medicaid Cuts: Why The GOP's Reconciliation Bill Is A Raw Deal For The American People SEE ALSO Op-Ed: Care For Constituents Or Chaos? Medicaid Cuts Will Devastate All Of Us was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE