Home > The Book Page > Archives > 2008 > January > 30 > Entry
Who’s a sellout?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Randall Kennedy writes about incendiary topics with a sharp, cool intellect. One can admire that approach, and/or one can paraphrase Dr. Phil: So, how’s that working for ya?
Kennedy is a law professor at Harvard. His last book was the excellent historical and literary journey subtitled “The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word.” I’m being more coy than Kennedy was as to the title.
Kennedy’s latest book is “Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal.” He will be at the Margaret Mitchell House tonight to discuss and sign the book; as always, reception at 6, lecture at 7, $10 for non-members.
Kennedy is a thorough, precise writer whose thoughts do not reduce to a simple power point presentatiom. “Selllout’ is about the many permutations of black life that give rise to accusations of selling out one’s race, from “acting white” (i.e. studying in school) to dating or marrying white.
The paper’s @Issue section ran a pretty large excerpt from “Sellout” on Jan. 20. Here are a few snippets:
“Angst over complacency, collaboration and defection continues to occupy a salient place in the Afro-American mind and soul. One hears it in ceaselessly repeated phrases such as “Don’t forget where you come from” and “Stay black.” One sees it in the often obsessive attentiveness with which many blacks scrutinize other blacks for evidence of “passing,” “acting white,” or otherwise showing what is denounced as an inadequate commitment to black solidarity. One sees it in efforts by blacks, especially those in elite, predominantly white settings, to signal to other blacks (and themselves as well) that they have remained true to blackness.”
“…Pursuing certain occupations or attending to certain tasks within an occupation have prompted charges of selling out. Blacks who serve as police officers can expect such denunciation, as can blacks who work as elite corporate attorneys.
During the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, the black assistant district attorney Christopher Darden became a target for accusations of racial betrayal. Black journalists, too, have been condemned. When Milton Coleman of The Washington Post revealed that presidential contender Jesse Jackson had referred to Jews as “Hymies,” Coleman “was assailed by blacks across the country as a sellout who, for career advancement, was attempting to derail Jackson’s historic campaign.” Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam vilified the reporter as “a no-good, filthy traitor” who should be shunned “so that he cannot enter in among black people.”
Scores of black conservatives have been derided as sellouts. Angered by the black economist Thomas Sowell’s opposition to affirmative action and other liberal policies, the journalist Carl Rowan said of him that “Vidkun Quisling, in his collaboration with the Nazis, surely did not do as much damage to the Norwegians as Sowell is doing to the most helpless of black Americans. Sowell is giving aid and comfort to America’s racists.”
Is Kennedy’s concern justified? Is there a way out of this mess?
Thanks to all who commented. I’m turning off commenting now. Come back tomorrow for something completely different.
Permalink | Comments (12) | Categories: Atlanta Events
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By jct
January 30, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the heads up Phil. This book has not been on my radar. I would like to see what he has to say. I would say the comments that I have read are on target. I have a 16 year old step son. We have numerous discussions around what does it mean to be black. I always try to reinforce that following your own path and academic pursuits has absolutely nothing to do with being black. It’s okay to find your own voice.
By Charles
January 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Phil Kloer,
I pray that my comment is not perceived as “ugliness”. We all know that the truth is usually ugly and difficult to face.
I believe that integrationist Negroes are the best examples of sellouts.
Benjamin Franklin said that one who would give up freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security.
The building of black institutions, industries, businesses, etc. would have met the basic needs of African Americans. African Americans should produce their own food, clothing, shelter, jobs, schools and universities for up-lifting education. Doing so would have crowned African Americans with glory, honor, dignity, and respect among individuals in their ethnic group; and other people in general. They would have been on the path to power and freedom.
The integrationist Negroes decided to depend on the security, goods and services, of other people. They decided to depend on the food, clothing, shelter, jobs, and education etc of any other group of people that had the wherewithal to provide it. Regretfully, they steadfastly teach their children to depend on other groups of people to provide for their security.
Someday, history will show integrationist Negroes as models of “classic sellouts”.
By steve-o
January 30, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Charles, you’re blind and in the dark. How can you point the finger when you refer to yourself as the antiquated slave term “Negro”? We all have to live in this world, why the hell should we isolate ourselves. If you’re so willing, Sub-Sahara Africa is waiting for you.
As far as sellouts are concerned, sellouts are blacks who “talk white”, “listen to white music”, or date white people. Whoever thinks that (and a lot do) is an ignorant chump who’s too self-concious about what others think about them.
On the other hand, black folks who throw blacks under the bus as a whole for white approval are sellouts. Such examples include:
-Ward Connerly
-Clarence Thomas
-Jesse Lee Peterson (Sean Hannity’s personal house negro brought on to spew racist vitriol that Hannity doesn’t have the nerve to say)
-LaShawn Barber (blogger who rants against anything black)
By Charles
January 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Only God and Negroes know what steve-o is talking about. Negroes were just as dependent on others to provide for their basic needs as so-call African Americans are today. They are one and the same; there is no difference. Both Negro and African American have no real power.
Steve-o is just plain silly or is being used like the integrationist use Tricky Dick Gregory; he talks a lot of nonsense on the radio to deceive the masses of black people. It’s difficult for abject ignorant people to distinguish nonsense from genuine knowledge. To the ignorant, they both appear to be identical.
I don’t want to isolate African Americans in the world. Where in the world did steve-o get that idea? Steve-o is just used to living without real power in the United States. African Americans living in the United States with real power are preferable; we don’t have to go anywhere.
By Jason
January 30, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Blacks who act “black” and can’t trace their roots back to slavery (e.g., those whose ancestors were black slavemasters or those whose families immigrated to the U.S. after the abolition of slavery) are sellouts. They selfishly exploit laws, programs and services put in place as a form of restitution to slaves and their descendents.
By 2008
January 30, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Sounds like this book brings squarely out into the open the non-so subtleness of being true to one’s blackness or being black enough. There is a very definitive racial divide and despite the attempts of many to put segregation and racial devisiveness behind us. Many in the black community continue to undermine the unity that MLK and others worked so hard to try to achieve.
By Kate
January 30, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
This is an important topic, Phil, but I’m not sure if there is a place in this conversation for a white voice. Is there? It seems that there is a prevailing sentiment of “don’t go there if you don’t know there.” Or a hypersensitivity amongst blacks when a white person weighs in on loaded issues such as ‘selling out.’ So, I find myself sitting out these conversations so as not to say or do the wrong thing.
What do you think? Can/should a white person participate in this debate? And how best to do that without making broad generalizations about race and race relations?
By Phil Kloer
January 30, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Good question, Kate. On one level, of course, this blog is open to anyone of any race to comment. But you’re talking about a different level. I think white people should be able to express thoughtful opinions about issues within the black community. Ultimately all this stuff affects everyone. That’s not to open the doors for ignorance, but if you think the drop-out rate of black high school students has no effect on white people, that’s pretty naive.
By DebbieDoRight
January 30, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
uh oh. Hi Charles, forgot your meds again? Nice to “see” you again on the blogs, sans medication; but it’s still nice to know you’re still out there kicking up a fuss!
Now, back to the topic: I’m so tired of “race” in the South. I’m originally from the West Coast where the subject of racial matters is not on everyone’s lips day in and day out forever and ever amen. Though I haven’t read the book, judging by the article’s wording, I seriously doubt I will.
Quick quetion to Jason, how do blacks “act black”? Is it the same way that chineese people “act chineese”?
By Tom
January 30, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
For steve-o: Kennedy’s book has an interesting discussion of the term “Negro.” It probably won’t surprise you that Kennedy disagrees with you about it.
The very fact that Mr. Kloer feels it necessary to omit the actual title of Kennedy’s previous book helps to bolster the point Kennedy is trying to make in it.
Randall Kennedy is one of most incisive thinkers and writers on a whole variety of topics, especially race (Anthony Appiah is another). I wish Kennedy got the same level of attention that some more flamboyant figures receive.
By Kate
January 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
OK, Phil, point taken.
I will say this about the ‘selling out’ concept—-It seems that there is collective definition of what it means to ‘be black’ and lack of conformity to that definition (whatever it is) is seen as disloyal and, therefore, selling out.
Not that the concept is exclusive to the African American community…..look at the attitudes of ‘intellectuals’ and Oprah’s book club (cough,Franzen,cough). Or Jewish people marrying outside their faith. It’s considered selling out or abandonment to step outside of the collective identity. And it comes at the cost of personal authenticity.
By Jason
January 30, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
“Quick quetion to Jason, how do blacks ‘act black’? Is it the same way that chineese people ‘act chineese’?”
That’s exactly why I put it in quotation marks. You can’t act black, just as you can’t act white. When I address those who act “black,” I’m talking about those who have an unmitigated distrust of and contempt for whites. Such sentiment can be expected from slaves and their descendents (although only about 4% of all whites owned slaves). However, if you have no ties to slavery (which a lot of blacks don’t and some whites do) and simply use your skin color as an excuse to play the part of the victim, you’re a sellout.