A sellout, or Uncle Tom, is one of the worst insults that can be levied towards a black person by another black person. I’ve been called a lot of things in my day, but being called a sellout was one the times that angered me the most. I remember thinking, “Who does he think he is to call me that and on what basis is he making this judgment?” Probably the thing that bothered me the most was the act of this cat playing the gatekeeper for black authenticity. Who is he to decide who is in with us or not?
The sad fact is that “sellout” is one of those epithets that is too irresponsibly and loosely thrown about among in the black community. Apparently, Randall Kennedy (pictured) has a beef with the term and his new book, Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal, seems to be all about an analysis of its definition and application. In summary:
The core of Kennedy’s argument is not that the black community should do away with the idea of selling out, but rather strictly define the behavior to which it applies. More interestingly, he places the burden of proof on the accuser, by suggesting that we impose consequences just as harsh for those who carelessly wield the label as we do for true sellouts. [source: Root]
John McWhorter, on the other hand, argues for doing away with the term all together:
The question is just who it would be logically “appropriate” to ostracize in the black America of 2008. Mr. Kennedy proposes hypothetical cases such as “an African-American member of a black uplift organization who reveals its secrets to anti-black adversaries out of malevolence or merely for purposes of self-promotion.” Yet in our America, a person like this would be vanishingly rare. The categories today are so fluid, the issues are so complex, and openly “anti-black” activity is socially proscribed to the point of marginality. Who would the “anti-black” adversaries be, and even if we identified some underground skinhead group as such, of what use would the minutes from an NAACP meeting be to whatever they were doing?
The notion that there are “Uncle Toms” rubbing their hands together and taking money from “the white man” is, in a word, primitive. It resembles the reasoning style of preliterate cultures, which rely on mythical archetypes and unquestioning Manichaean dichotomies as the only way to make sense of the complexities of existence within a prescientific mindset. [source: NYSun]
He makes a great point. Although, I’m more inclined to believe that the term should not be done away with altogether and that there are a few appropriate circumstances under which to apply the term. Applying it to blacks who hold conservative views is not one of those circumstances. As McWhorter notes, it is too much of an assumption to make that they are actively (or unintentionally) working in cahoots with anti-black people for our destruction. In that sense, it is quite a “primitive” use of the the word.
But there are times where the situation is clear-cut and deserving of the term as well as the resulting ostracism. And a lot of times it doesn’t have anything to do with siding with ill-intentioned whites. Take the producer and director of Criminals Gone Wild, for example. Now this cat is clearly actively behaving in a way that is “anti-black” for his own profit and doing so largely on his own (well, except for his collaboration with other black criminals). That, in my mind, is a very appropriate application of “sellout” in this day and age.
10 responses so far ↓
1
L
// Feb 11, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Cuz, McWhorter does not make a great point; his point is whack. He is right to attack Kennedy’s hypothetical sell-out as unrealistic to the extreme. There is a more apt term for the character Kennedy creates: spy. You don’t have to be a spy to be a sell-out, and McWhorter is right to posit that there are probably not that many black spies out there and, therefore, not that many subversive white groups engaging the services of black spies. But are racial categories in America in 2008 as “fluid” and “complex” as McWhorter would have us believe? This approach recalls the convenient introduction often offered by sensitive, well-intentioned white and black people: “race is still an issue in this country that is sadly not fading fast enough, but . . .” If one unpacks this introduction, which I think goes a long way to capturing McWhorter’s fluid/complex view of race in this country, racism is a mystifying presence that, if we all fan our hands in front of our faces hard and fast enough, will drift away like fog or funk. But racism is not like that at all. Rather, racism is part of us and instructs how we see people of other races. For example, I was listening to talk radio and the financial guru was talking about how Vince Lombardi’s players, almost to a man, were wealthy today. Guru went on to say how the former players credited Lombardi with instilling general practices that helped establish the foundation for wealth and happiness. Guru then compared the status of Lombardi-era football players to present-day NFL players. He sadly reported the impossibility of today’s players experiencing the same kind of wealth and happiness as players of the foregone era, because today’s players lack the “character” to appreciate, not to mention incorporate, Lombardi-like principles. He concluded by observing that many of today’s NFL players are “hoodlums.” How “fluid” and “complex” is that analysis? Sure, the comments themselves are race-neutral, but can a thinking person really overlook the fact that the racial composition of the NFL is strikingly different today than it was in the Lombardi era? Wasn’t that really just a racist comment?
I use that example to make the point that McWhorter’s insistence on overt racism in the form of skinheads or other bigoted groups asks too much. Morevover, McWhorter’s assertion that openly “anti-black” activity is socially proscribed is, in a word, a fairytale. Is blatant and systemic racism no longer socially acceptable because those practices are accepted as morally reprehensible, or because those practices, themselves, are primitive?
Ironically, my definition of sell-out captures your idea and Kennedy’s: a sell-out is any individual that subjugates the collective good for personal benefit. Unlike McWhorter’s and Kennedy’s analysis, I disagree that a sell-out has to play into the hands of malevolent or complicit whites. In fact, inasmuch as I believe the “real” collective is comprised of all races, a sell-out can assume any hue.
2
Mike
// Feb 11, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I agree, being a sellout doesn’t require complicity with someone from the “other side.” The example I noted speaks to that definition. You offer a broader definition that I agree with as well. Since Kennedy’s book was about Blacks, that’s mostly what I was focusing on.
Here we go on a tangent again… Regarding your “Guru” example, you are right– that was a pretty clear-cut case of racism (or at least prejudice–it all depends on your definition). But many times what is experienced as racism is not always as clear cut. Did that cab pass you up because you are black or because he was headed home? Did that cop stop you because you were black or because you made a rolling stop at that stop sign? For every clear-cut “guru” scenario there’s numerous ambiguous ones.
3
L
// Feb 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Holmes, I don’t believe in ambiguous racism. In fact, I don’t believe in any ambiguously negative experience. Not to be curt or corny or trite (WARNING: I’m about to be curt, corny, and trite) but I believe that you either happen to your life, or your life happens to you. What that means in this context is that we sometimes have the chance to choose how we process objective experience. And, when given the choice, why not choose the non-hurtful, if not positive experience.? In your example, you will never know why that cab didn’t stop to pick you up. You can therefore choose to make the reason your race, or you can choose to make it some other non-hurtful reason. In this way, we create our own reality (as we do most of the time anyway). As for the rolling stop, it’s at least a 50/50 chance that you got stopped because you broke the law. I’d choose, unless confronted with other indicators of racism, the 50 that has to do with law rather than race. However, this rationale only applies in truly ambiguous circumstances; I’m not advocating an ostrich’s approach to life. In short, subtle racism and ambiguously racial encounters are very different. When given the authentic choice between positive and negative, why don’t we choose the positive?
4
Mike
// Feb 11, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Hommie, you don’t believe in ambiguous racism? Huh? Sure, I am in agreement that one should not let racism, whether overt or subtle, get the best of them. And it certainly is not healthy to go about attributing every negative, ambiguous situation to racism. But because the perceiver doesn’t interpret an ambiguous situation as racist doesn’t make it fact. I think under such circumstances, one should give the benefit of the doubt and keep on keepin’ on. But you should also remain open to the possibility of a more malevolent motive at work, particularly when such situations can have meaningful effects on your life (missing a cab is not meaningful, BTW). A positive perspective with a tinge of cynicism is a good mix in such cases.
5
SL
// Feb 11, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I could do without the term. It reminds me of obsolete arguments about cultural “authenticity” etc.
In many cultures and communities there are similar terms to refer to those perceived to be “outside” of or “different” from the group they supposedly belong to.
We are too quick to label people as “sell outs” based on pre-conceived notions about what is “woman,” what is “Latino,” what is “black,” etc. But I think it is important to question those notions.
The problem with such terms is that they tend to deny the “fluid” and “complex” nature of these categories, as McWhorter notes.
I’m more than happy to discuss the realities of racism and any form of oppression. These are real and serious issues facing our society and our world. That being said, I don’t respond very well when somebody tries to impose a label on me without understanding the complexities of my own experiences.
6
L
// Feb 12, 2008 at 10:34 am
Ock, I am not proposing naiveness, but I don’t think cynicism (whether it be a tinge or tablespoon full) is a successful strategy for dealing with racism either. If not getting a cab is not a meaningful life event (which I can’t say I agree with), then would you agree that getting passed over for a promotion at work qualifies? If you do, what about the scenario where Blackman (who is black) and Whitewoman (who is white) are both up for a promotion, and Whitewoman gets the job. The person hiring is their boss, Whiteman (who is also white). All things being equal about Blackman’s and Whitewoman’s education, experience, and performance, how would Blackman’s cynicism benefit him in this instance? Wouldn’t it be more useful to assume that the decision was not based on race–in the circumstance where there are no clear indicators forbidding the assumption–so that Blackman could attempt to self evaluate to learn what about the hiring process might have contributed to the choice being someone other than him? Don’t we lead more impactful, productive lives through introspection rather than reaction? Refusing to accept (truly) ambiguous racism affords one the chance to allow self-examination to be the effect of such experiences (the perceiver is at the center of the inquiry), whereas your approach has as the effect of such experiences bitterness and paranoia (the actor is at the center of the inquiry).
And SL, is there such a thing as a sellout to womanhood? Isn’t the term’s roots in race and culture, not in gender? Moreover, I cram to understand you and McWhorter’s insistence on the notion of fluid and complex categories. The whole purpose of categorization is to abolish or, at least, diminish concepts of fluidity and complexity in race/cultural discourse. You can’t have it both ways: either we accept categorization and play by the rules that flow from that process, or we reject categories and acknowledge an individual’s fluidity and complexity. At the end of the day, we either succumb to labels (the fundamental limitation of language) or strive to achieve a unity that frees us from the need to try to name things that are unnamable.
7
Mike
// Feb 12, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Home Slice, re ambiguous racism… I think we’re more in agreement than not. Self reflection is always a good thing. Yes, the scenario you gave of Blackman getting passed up on a promotion when he is he is just a qualified as Whitewoman can be one of those ambiguous situations. Personally, I wouldn’t jump to calling that racism. As you propose, I would use it a chance for self reflection and would work harder for getting that promotion next time. However, I would also keep an eye out for patterns of Whiteman’s behavior that might suggest that my work ethic does not count—whether it be a function of racism or Whiteman just not liking me some other unfair reason. It would be more of an issue of me assessing the fairness of my work environment than looking for racism, per se.
SL and L, re the fluidity and complexity of categories… In general, categories are more fluid and complex than the labels we give them. Yet, categorizing is a part of human nature. We don’t have the capacity or time to process the complexity of all information that comes at us.
L, I don’t agree with your either-or argument that we either accept categorization or reject it for complexity. Just accepting categorization outright does not take advantage of the feature that makes us distinctly human–our minds. On the other hand, just acknowledging that everything is too complex leaves us at a loss for being able to organize information for action. The solution, in my mind, is categories with fluid boundaries.
For example, a clinical diagnosis is a category, but the constellation of symptoms and expression of the disease/disorder differs across individuals. Having the diagnostic category helps the clinician understand the general nature and solution of a problem but the individual information helps him/her act more effectively. Likewise, we might have a general “sellout” category, but it is primitive (borrowing McWhorter’s term) to simply slap that label on someone with little or no information about that individual or their behavior.
8
L
// Feb 13, 2008 at 10:34 am
Baby Bubba (shout out to Horace the Taurus Pendarvis III), you tried to be slick and recharacterize my argument as a choice between unacceptable options: blanket categorization or non-categorization that leads to disorganization. Nice try. However, where you go astray is in thinking that people, like ideas or clinical diagnoses or hurricanes, can be thoughtfully lumped together for further scrutiny. People are not like ideas or clinical diagnoses or hurricanes. Categorization is useful for probing and studying things. Insofar as I am not focused on studying folks, then I reject the need to always be categorizing folks. Respect and understanding are universal, and can be attained without first establishing groups. However, if you do feel the need to categorize folks, accept that, by definition, categories have boundaries. At best, things can be lumped into multiple categories, but the idea of fuzzy lines (or fluidity and complexity as others refer to the concept) is counterintuitive to the very notion of grouping.
9
Mike
// Feb 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm
L,
Wow, you reached way back with the “Baby Bubba” salutation (a back-in-the-day Philly/South Jersey reference for the rest of y’all). I still remember hearing Horace the Taurus singing, “Keeeeeep your heeeeaaad to the stars, Baby Bubbaaaaaaa.” Good one–I’m impressed.
On to your main point…Are you splitting hairs again? Really, what is different between your concept of multiple categories and my concept of categories with fluid boundaries that consider an individual’s characteristics? Don’t they both argue for understanding the multiple aspects of an individual despite the general category they might fall into?
10
JJ
// Feb 13, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Here is an obvious “Sellout”.
Leave a Comment