Trackbacks & Pings

1. Some Reminders at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 15 Sep 2008 at 1:31 pm

   [...] examine the role of race in our society. I really enjoyed the majority of the comments on The Politics of Selling Out post, and hope to see that level of nuance employed to most of the political posts here from now [...]

Comments

1. Mogs wrote:

   if you fail to carefully and thoughtfully vote according to sincerely held beliefs that you have examined thoroughly and critically, then you are selling out yourself and your fellow citizens. if you do cast your vote carefully and thoughtfully, then you might be wrong or misguided, but you aren’t a sellout. so the question is, did Daddy Yankee endorse McCain because, after thought and research, he believes McCain is the right choice for the nation, or did he do it as a publicity stunt?

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶

2. Renee wrote:

   This is a very tough question that you ask. I personally believe that people who vote Republican do so because of false class alignment. The GOP basically sell the false lie of meritocracy and the American dream. At some level I believe that most people are aware of the contradictions that this party embodies and if you have even the smallest moment of realness in good conscience you have to speak out.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶

3. nananananana...culo! wrote:

   I too was outraged by daddy yankee’s shameless stunt, and I was puzzled as to why he did such a thing, until I remembered that whiteness is the mark of success in many countries (including this one).

   As a businessman, why would he turn down new access to conservatives (and other mainstream audiences)? How could he turn down the publicity that has led to this very discussion?

   As a latino (which is only relevant in american racial politics), I’m not sure that he sold out his people. There are lots of latinos in the military, who very well may agree with john mccain’s policies. There also may be others who disagree with his stance on immigration policy, health care, etc… But, I hope that someone who is of voting age wouldn’t say “well, if Daddy Yankee endorses McCain, then I trust his political judgment. When it comes to being politically informed, Daddy Yankee comes to mind.”

   As a person who (I assume) hails from the lower class, Daddy Yankee wouldn’t really be “selling out” in this case, I think he is really “forgetting where he came from.” The reason why I say this is because his music isn’t exactly politically charged or conscious in any way. He is a club banger factory, and makes no attempt to bring anything wholesome, uplifting, or complex into his music. Also, his name is “Daddy Yankee” which can be construed to reference that america is the “man” or the “father” presiding over the rest of the world, an image that he puts on to elevate himself, in his own mind, to the status of a american man. And who are the daddies of america? Old white guys like mccain.

   And it is interesting that Fat Joe equates republicans with being anti-black, and that by not supporting obama, DY is selling out his people’s interests. Democrats haven’t brought sweeping reforms that the hood needs at all. In fact, the Clinton administration passed the bill that caused the subprime mortgage crisis that devastated lower income people of color. The bill (which is never talked about on the news) is called The Gramm-Leach-Biley Act.
   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

   This atrocious bill repealed the safeguards passed after the Great Depression to prevent speculators from driving up prices artificially, and then selling off all at once. The democrats run on social equality and all this stuff, but in practice they don’t really stop the iraq war or help labor unions. It’s all branding and advertisment, like the commercials on BET that say “Nike is helping the community” and shows a black family smiling. Democrats just know how to “speak our language” so they can stab us in the back. At least the republicans stab us in the front, like gentlemen.

   I don’t think there’s anything wrong with selling out in these times. During the civil rights movement, yeah. That would have been horrible. But today, everything has been co-opted (even the democrats’ message of change), commodified, and profited from. There is nothing sacred left to sell out. After all, the whole point of the american dream is to escape poverty by selling out. Americans know that if you don’t step up, you get stepped on, regardless of your intentions or well-meaning efforts to “change things”.
   ‘
   Today, there are few methods left to change things that don’t involve lots of money. Free speech zones and surveillance have made the methods of the sixties obsolete and ineffective. Today, money talks, and little else matters.

   Daddy Yankee could have made an appearance for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente, which would have been the most not-selling-out thing to do. It would have been easier for him to compromise by jumping on the liberal artist bandwagon by making a bachata (sp?) “Yes we can” remix. I guess McCain pays better.

   phew. I’m done.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 12:55 pm ¶

4. Arturo wrote:

   For me, the key question is: who benefits?

   In Watts’ case, I don’t see any benefit for him within his own party — not in an election as ugly as this one’s already become. So I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motivations. As far as DY’s endorsement of McCain, has he specifically cited any policies of McCain’s that he supports? For that matter, why did Ricky Martin see fit to dance it up with W. a few years back?

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 1:05 pm ¶

5. Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

   I think Fat Joe’s criticism of Daddy Yankee is dead-on point when it comes to “selling out.” I view selling out as taking a stance to benefit one’s own self – especially in the wallet. While I have no proof of this, I really think Daddy Yankee’s motivation was attention and publicity – not the underlying political issues. I think that taking such a stance (if that is what he did) makes him a sellout.

   If Daddy Yankee truly supports drilling, larger tax breaks for the rich, allowing the health care market to fix itself, avoiding conversations with “enemies,” etc. etc. etc. – then I wouldn’t consider it a sell out move.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶

6. Monie wrote:

   Fat Joe makes great points on a larger level. However maybe Daddy Yankee, assuming he’s in the upper tax bracket, is looking out for himself. Which is okay I suppose. We don’t expect the CEO of Ford Motor Co. to support a Democrat because most of his customers are middle class do we? So why do we expect rappers to support the Democrat because a segment of their fans are poor?

   On the other hand; if a rapper such as Daddy Yankee in his lyrics touts his support of the poor and talks about the plight of the poor in his music then maybe he is a sellout.

   I guess the point is; by supporting John McCain who is Daddy Yankee selling out? Is he selling out his fans? If Daddy Yankee supported Obama would he be selling himself out to look good in the eyes of his fans?

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 1:13 pm ¶

7. Thea Lim wrote:

   I remember watching an ipod commercial that used Eminem’s “Lose Yourself”, and one of my roommates jokingly saying that Eminem had “sold in”.

   I’d never heard Eminem say he was against massive multinational corporations, so selling his song to one wasn’t quite “selling out”, more like “selling in.”

   To me it seems like DY threw his support behind McCain just for press. So maybe the same phrase applies to DY – what were his affiliations before he joined up with McCain? Did he show any previous loyalty to or interest in the situations of Latinos in America? If not, he just sold in.

   Not to say that the semantics of it changes the fact that DY backing McCain was a low move…

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 1:32 pm ¶

8. WestIndianArchie wrote:

   “Is there a such thing as selling out, and if so, how do political affiliations play into that process?”

   1) Yes selling out exists.

   2) If you believe in “identity politics” and “group identity” – when you vote against your group identity – you are selling out.

   It’s not much more complicated than that, in terms of labeling someone a sell out.

   The real action is
   - what does it mean to the person labeled
   - what does it mean to the people doing the labeling?

   To borrow from my own experience, the “Bill Cosby” debate.

   To me, anyone who gives any sort of credence to anything that Cosby says, is clearly a sellout and not down for the people. Probably enjoys mayonnaise and thinks pumpkin pie is better than sweet potato, or god forbid they like sugar in their grits.

   The race-traitors on the otherside of the debate, feel that Cosby is speaking the Gospel, and nationalists like myself are heathens.

   Where the community hasn’t decided how to feel about a particular issue, the sell out label isn’t particularly useful.

   If a NY born Boricua (Fat Joe) can define a PR born Boricua (Daddy Yankee), our Puerto Rock friends have something to discuss amongst themselves. Does DY have more credibility given he’s from PR and not NY? Does FJ have more cred given that he’s a US citizen who’s against McCain’s policy.

   Once they’ve figured it out, the label can stick.

   And given the issue for DY and JM is immigration, that leads into other convos.

   Since Reggaeton has become a Pan-Latin music, the Caribbean Latinos, Central and South American Latinos need to have the conversation as well.

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 1:45 pm ¶

9. Versai wrote:

   I don’t think a white evangelical southerner could ever be considered a sellout. Sellout means that you’ve betrayed your people (race) in order to get favor, money, or some kind of advantage from the oppressor/The Man/the dominant white male patriarchy–whatever. If a w.e.s. votes for someone he “isn’t” supposed to vote for (saw a Jewish person)–he wouldn’t be seen (by normal people*) as trading his support/vote to get an adventage from a group “above” white males on the oppression trail. He could be seen by racist as a race-traitor–but that doesn’t imply getting an advantage from a group that’s higher up.

   (*If you believe that the whole world is secretly run by Jews and other races are merely pawns–than you’d call him a sellout.)

   I do think people–especially entertainers–need to be really careful about calling other people sellouts. If your rap lyrics showcase the worst things about poor black communities and you KNOW that your core audience is white, are you selling out the poor, black community you supposedly care about (cash for stereotypes)? If your lyrics are mysoginist because you think you can’t pack have a sell out tour otherwise, are you selling out your mothers/sisters/all women?
   (I’m not talking about Fat Joe here–because I know little of him and his music. I mean entertainers in general.)

   Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 2:05 pm ¶

10. Kaonashi wrote:

    if you fail to carefully and thoughtfully vote according to sincerely held beliefs that you have examined thoroughly and critically, then you are selling out yourself and your fellow citizens. if you do cast your vote carefully and thoughtfully, then you might be wrong or misguided, but you aren’t a sellout.

    I agree wholeheartedly. There are minorities who vote Republican because of the more traditional values that party has. And then there’s independents like myself who will vote who whoever we feel is the most qualified to get the job done, whether is Dem, Rep, or Green. Who you vote for is your business; just do your homework and be informed.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 3:20 pm ¶

11. Jorge wrote:

    As Nos. 4, 7, and 8 mentioned or allude to, it comes down to what benefits me.

    Branding someone a sell out is an imposition of someone else’s ideas on another person. The ideas and groups I identify with change over time. I don’t see why one should continue to be loyal to a group with which one has nothing or little left in common. If class trumps race, so be it.

    The whole DY / FJ … because of distance, age, culture, and my deep dislike of regeton, they are light years away from the things that concern me. Maybe DY likes tax cuts, which will leave him more money to fund his non-profits or whatever it is he does.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 3:37 pm ¶

12. octogalore wrote:

    I like what the first commenter, Mogs, said. Sure, there’s such a thing as selling out. But nobody except DY can say whether he personally did that. There are principled reasons to vote Repub, whether or not we agree with those principles.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 3:47 pm ¶

13. A.D. Nix wrote:

    “Branding someone a sell out is an imposition of someone else’s ideas on another person. The ideas and groups I identify with change over time. I don’t see why one should continue to be loyal to a group with which one has nothing or little left in common. If class trumps race, so be it.”

    I agree. But I’m a black woman who likes mayonnaise, and sugared grits (I had no idea they were eaten any other way until I was in my 20s) so perhaps the fact that I resist the promiscuous use of the term isn’t that surprising. It’s often used to police behavior in a way that I find not just limiting on a personal level, but dangerous socially and politically.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 3:52 pm ¶

14. Lakergrrl wrote:

    I’m with Joey Crack (on this one at least). When Daddy Yankee’s endorsement of McCain came out, even the white people in my office said he sold out!!! Why? Because even the most reggatonally ignorant understood it was sheer publicity stunt. If Yankee was one of those “Latinos” (ugh, I hate that term) to go repulicano because of their more “traditional” values, why the heck is he doing songs like Gasolina ?

    IMO they should debate, with Rachel Maddow as moderator and have it simulcast on Univision and BET. I bet ratings would through the roof. Who says thugs aint interested in politics.

    !Dile no al reggaton!

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶

15. Brianjkoscuiszka wrote:

    This is a really difficult concept, because the idea of a “vote” being selling-out implies that there is some obligation that individual members of a group have to the rest of the members of that group. Would it be wrong if a latino person voted for a politician who did not have the strongest record on latino issues but whom he did support on a variety of other issues? We accept a variety of reasons why people vote; should this not be extended to people of color as well? Whites vote based on religion, “values”, the economy, education, foreign policy, reproductive rights, etc, etc, etc. Are we going to say that people of color can ONLY choose candidates who work in the best interests of people of color? This seems unfair. As long as a voter is informed and making a decision based on SOME substance of the politician’s policy, I accept that as a legit vote. You can disagree with it and fault their priorities, but to call them a sell-out implies there is some expectation on people of color that doesn’t exist for whites…

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 6:51 pm ¶

16. gatamala wrote:

    I personally believe that people who vote Republican do so because of false class alignment. The GOP basically sell the false lie of meritocracy and the American dream

    Renee~your second sentence is very very true. And I think the first sentence follows from it. But by the same token, there are people who vote Dem AGAINST their $$$ interests. I, as an independent, do.

    nananana…culo ~ (why did the beat come into my head when I typed that?) Preach. I wonder what DY’s relationship is/was with the PRs that serve. There are many PRs that shed blood for the states. What is his relationship/understanding to/with them?

    mogs~very logical. That makes sense and reflects my more rational beliefs on selling out.

    Jus Plain~ I view selling out as taking a stance to benefit one’s own self – especially in the wallet.

    If you don’t look out for yourself, who will? During 2004 I learned of OH families who voted against their families’ access to health care in order to vote “against gay folks’ marriage”. Did they sell out or vote principles?

    WIA~ if you reduce “your” people and others to false dichotomies (like W), when they fight everyday (on this blog and in life) to be multi-dimensional human beings you are a total sell-out. People evolve. Please finish the rest of the Autobiography.

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 7:13 pm ¶

17. Andom wrote:

    Fat Joe and Daddy Yankee sold out way before they made any political endorsements. Like an investment banker who disregards the concerns of his/her community in the name of individual monetary gains, Daddy Yankee and Fat Joe have made millions exploitatively propagating as truth a misogynistic, materialistic fantasy life they lead in videos, the consequences of which detriment the livelihoods and culture of the very people in urban communities they falsely claim to be for. Fat Joe and Daddy Yankee have been sell-outs from day one, making money at the expense of their (hip-hop) culture and people.

    (I understand that this post is written under the assumption that here is a moral and normative standard of hip-hop. I have no problem, however, saying that hip-hop is NOT misogyny, is NOT capitalism, and is NOT the glorification of violence.)

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 7:42 pm ¶

18. Brohammas wrote:

    “Sellout” means different things to different people.
    Coming up in a white world, “sellout” was usually something akin to a punk rock artist signing to a major record label. It was the idea of someone who stands for something, i.e. anarchy and anti-establishment, acting contrary to those ideals for money. Like a hippy getting a job on Wall Street.

    As it is used in race and politics, I see it as a charge meant to cow individuals back into the group. Somewhere, someone, somehow, decided what is good for all minorities and don’t you go getting any different ideas.

    Is Condie a sellout for being Sec. of State just because it is a Rep. administration? Does the same accusation apply to Powell?

    While I see that the GOP may be chalk full of, and a haven for, racists, the ideals of small government, free trade, and pro-life are not inherently in opposition to the interests of black or Latino people. If a minority believes in those things but contradicts themselves by joining the Democrats for social acceptance, is this not selling out as well?

    Posted 11 Sep 2008 at 8:15 pm ¶

19. iman wrote:

    There is nothing more annoying, and quite frankly, patronizing, than calling someone a “sell-out.” I had a friend in college who constantly berated me for my more conservative ideologies and I resented the moral authority he assumed. He had an argument against everything – the evil neo-industrial complex, economic imperialism, blah blah (all valid in certain contexts but moot if you really think about it) – and thought he was a much better person because he voted democrat and interned for one of those international development non-profits. At the time I was working for a large corporation and not a day went by when he did not blame my “ignorance” on my “privilege.” It irked him even more because I was doing all this in spite of being an African – like my race should have automatically dictated my every choice. I am not going to lie and say that my political views were unselfish, but at the time, they best served my needs and I think it would have been naive of me to sacrifice those for the sake of other people, as harsh as that seems. I just had issues with his hypocrisy – for starters, he did not seem to realize that he had the luxury to take an unpaid job (his parents subsidized everything from his rent to his booze money) and that those dev firms (like almost any liberal initiative, no disrespect intended to anyone affiliated to one) that he took so much pride in were mostly just another extension of the so-called imperialism he argued so vehemently against.

    Anyway this is veering wildly off topic, but point is, like Brianjkoscuiszka above, I feel that “the idea of a “vote” being selling-out implies that there is some obligation that individual members of a group have to the rest of the members of that group” and that this is a pressure that is typically (& unfairly) exerted on minorities. Just think of the backlash Tavis Smiley has endured for his criticism of Barack Obama and how ironic that is considering Smiley’s contribution to and genuine interest in the advancement of blacks.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 3:09 am ¶

20. Calin wrote:

    Since we have no way of knowing for sure whether or not DY is being genuine (personally, I’d say not) on the basis that he is, let me just start by saying the term “selling out” is destructive.

    When we expect people to behave the way we do because of a common race or when we maintain that someone owes the people who share his or her identities some degree of loyalty because of struggles in the past or present it’s counterproductive to the whole movement. We imply that there are certain limitations on the choices they can make for themselves because of their race.

    People of the same race can have different life experiences, values, goals and expectations.

    What is the point of racial equality, exactly? To align racial minorities to a particular political philosophy? To help Democrats win elected office?

    Let’s say DY made his choice based on what he really thinks is best. The assumption people have when they vote is that the person they vote for will be better for the country and for themselves and that people voting for the other candidate are making things worse. We all think that but we can’t all be right.

    We can disagree with people but assuming those who make different decisions from us are stupid or malicious is arrogant and shortsighted.

    And as for meritocracy and the American Dream being a lie, I have to say that if that were the case my parents and many other immigrants wouldn’t have come here to seek a better life. It’s not and they did.

    I understand that for many people escaping poverty is not possible given circumstances they inherit from an unfair power structure, but it does happen. Just because Republicans make it seem easier than it really is or a possibility for everyone when it isn’t doesn’t make it not true.

    (Wow, that was incredibly long. Sorry.)

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 3:22 am ¶

21. Jess wrote:

    I agree that the whole “sell-out” concept is just plain wrong.

    First, everybody “sells out” to some degree. Unless you live in a cave or eat out of trash bins. So all of us, every single day, support things we don’t believe in every time you walk into a store and buy food.

    Second, i am not sure that what rappers do is so relevant to their politics. I mean, as an artist, I can write lyriics about supporting the poor but that may or may not have anything to do with where I stand politically. I’m a writer, and I used to write for a very right-wing daily paper. Did I agree with their editorial stance? No. But I needed the check to eat. You want to pay me to do something else, then I’m all about that. But progressive organizations just don’t pay enough and I got tired of eating on food stamps back in 1981.

    Iman is right, too often the whole concept of selling out is a hippie-white-kid thing.

    Daddy Yankee might support McCain because he thinks its best. Maybe he thinks McCain shares his values and is less racist than the rest of the GOP. But tellingly not one person her can cite a case where anyone asked him.

    Also, I wish to god people would quit thinking that people vote by thinking out issues rationally. They don’t. The never, ever have, at least not since the era of television. Politics just doesn’t work that way. George Lakoff said it best: it is never, ever about the issues. We may not like it, but that is just the way it is.

    Someone asked why Ricky Martin danced it up with Dubya, and the reason is he’s Cuban.

    Now, there’s an interesting case. Cubans are pretty solid for the GOP in Florida, largely because the older folks are still mad about the Bay of Pigs (or failure thereof). The situation is a little different in New York, where the Cuban community is really small and those folks came Pre-Castro.

    I could argue Martin is remaining loyal to the older voices of the Cuban community in that case, even though many here would say the Republicans don’t play well on issues important to Latinos.

    Would he be a sell-out if he voted for Obama?

    Selling out has become a buzzword without meaning. Let’s bury it.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 6:52 am ¶

22. A.D. Nix wrote:

    I think people are definitely speaking about two very different kinds of “selling-out” – selling-out to a the system vs. selling-out as racial betrayal (as per the image with the post).

    The latter is definitely NOT a hippie-white-kid thing. At least not alone. By any means.

    With the former, you at least have the opportunity of establishing your ideals for yourself. With the latter, it’s someone else who determines what you SHOULD think and how you SHOULD behave based on what racial/ethnic/gender/sexual orientation group you belong to (usually at the expense of intersectionality. See: Gloria Steinem on why women should have voted for Clinton) and if, in fact, you step out of line (a line you never agreed to operate within in the first place), you have betrayed yourself. You have sacrificed your authenticity. You are trying to be something that you are not and can never ever be.

    The stigma of ‘racial betrayal’ is a little more potent a little harder to wash off than whatever blow back may come from a white hippie becoming a stockbroker or Chris Brown secretly shilling for Wrigley.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 8:52 am ¶

23. Marisol LeBron wrote:

    I am really interested in what often gets termed “the politics of selling out” and I do a lot of work around it. I think the idea of some action, thought, or person being read or coded as a “sell out” is inherently dangerous, particularly to progressive politics in communities of color.

    The assumption that someone or something can sell out the race assumes that racialized categories are: 1) fixed and stabled, 2) imutable, 3) not historically constructed and situated.

    For Fat Joe to say DY is a sell out is not to critique Daddy Yankee’s actions, but to critque political conservatism as something that he sees as inaquthentically Latino/a. This view not only reifies the ideas of Latino/a as a monolithic group, but it then calls into question in what ways someone is allowed to identify with their own experience of Latinidad.

    A far more interesting a complicated critique of Daddy Yankee would not deploy the politics of selling out, but would have actually asked what are the material realities that influence some Latinos/as to vote republican. A more interesting question of daddy yankee would have been why does a lower class Puerto Rican raised in Villa Kennedy one of the toughest caserios in PR feel an affinity with conservative politics?

    The politics of selling out no doubt keeps us stagnant and narrow in our conceptualization of culture and/or race, and ultimately this kind of fixed notion of “authenticity” only makes us easier to divide and conquer and keep us from mobilizing around social justice issues.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 9:32 am ¶

24. Marisol LeBron wrote:

    ps. Ricky Martin is not Cuban, he’s Puerto Rican and still shook his bon-bon for Bush

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 9:34 am ¶

25. Lyonside wrote:

    Marisol: good catch. Two ideas on the Ricky Martin thing – 1. the artist may have just done it as a paying gig – therefore, could be seen as a sell-out to Big Business… if Martin ever had indie cred, which seeing as he started in the absolutely-commercial Menudo, I really doubt that was even in jeopardy

    2. Or the artist legitimately falls in the same social conservative camp as my PR inlaws, even when the Republican party moves against their best economic interests.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 10:19 am ¶

26. Barefoot 'n Pregnant wrote:

    Looking at DY as a sell-out for endorsing a Republican I think is a more accurate way to describe Fat Joe’s sentiment. DY was specifically endorsing McCain for his specific positive work with the American-Hispanic community. I think that calling him a sell-out is looking at the situation too broadly. He’s not necessarily endorsing all the policies of the Republican party or the past mistakes the party has made, but is rather endorsing the positive influence he sees McCain as having made. Is this right…that’s a debateable point. Should he be endorsing McCain based on this one small point or rather evaluating the party as a whole and taking its history into consideration? Is it dangerous to support a politician based on one quality you like in them? I admit I took a similar action…kind of….towards Hillary Clinton before she was booted out. I supported Obama because of one small thing Hillary did that I didn’t like. As the decision for democratic nominee drew closer, I started to question my sentiments towards Hillary–should I be looking at her more broadly instead of harping on one small action she made that I disapprove of. But then again, the one “small” thing was a very big deal to me. So is DY really a sell-out or is McCain’s work in Hispanic community a really big deal to him?

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 10:34 am ¶

27. Actually wrote:

    It appears that Daddy Yankee approached the Obama camp about an endorsement first. After being rebuffed he went to McCain

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 10:41 am ¶

28. gatamala wrote:

    Brohamas, adnix are on point

    iman

    I am not going to lie and say that my political views were unselfish, but at the time, they best served my needs and I think it would have been naive of me to sacrifice those for the sake of other people, as harsh as that seems.

    If you don’t take care of yourself who will? Your “progressive” friend’s parents? You should call him out on that.

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 11:05 am ¶

29. Ben Bakke wrote:

    My girlfriend is Puerto Rican and said that in Puerto Rico the GOP there is the most pro-independence of the two major political parties. I looked at both the Republican and Democratic party platforms and they both look like they support putting the issue to a vote (status quo (commonwealth) vs. statehood vs. independence). I only did a cursory search to see if this had anything to do with DY’s McCain endorsement and could find nothing. I am not saying this is the case, but it is possible he is pro independence (although I don’t know how approaching Obama about an endorsement would fit into this).

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 4:22 pm ¶

30. Eric Daniels wrote:

    Iman you are on point with the Tavis Smiley thing because I have been called a “sellout” by blacks for not supporting Sen Obama when I have challenged his policies and habit of lecturing black people instead of honestly campaigning for their votes like he does with Hispanics and other groups. Tavis Smiley has done more for the Afro- American community than Obama ever done has in three lifetimes.

    The only Thing Oama ever did was open his mouth !!!!

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 4:41 pm ¶

31. Brohammas wrote:

    I’m not voting for him but McCain does have a record that is very contrary to his party when it comes to the southern border. Is this not worth aLatino’s consideration if we are linking all this to race?

    Posted 12 Sep 2008 at 11:17 pm ¶

32. Free wrote:

    I don’t know enough about Daddy Yankee’s motives to determine whether he’s a sell-out or not. Maybe he just can’t support a black man or he’s decided that the Republican political power is the way to go. I disagree with those who say we need to bury the term. There are people who will sell-out their friends, family or their people for money or prestige: Robert Mugabe is a good example.

    Posted 13 Sep 2008 at 11:15 pm ¶

33. Big Man wrote:

    Eric Daniels, Tavis has gotten a lot of credit for writing some books. Did Tavis go to law school and then spend three years working with poor black people in the projects? Since Obama did, I think that qualifies as giving back to the community.

    Posted 13 Sep 2008 at 11:42 pm ¶

34. Jess wrote:

    @ Marisol — I stand corrected. But the point I was making is just that we all gotta eat. And DY and Martin seem to be taking the paying gigs they can.

    I don’t begrudge them that. And I haven’t asked Martin what his politics are. But something tells me that it involves dead presidents rather than living ones. Same for Daddy Yankee.

    Also, let’s be clear, just because someone is a celebrity may not mean a whole lot in the scheme of things. Britney Spears thinks Bush is great, but do you honestly know anyone who gives a rat’s a– what she thinks about politics? I don’t care what Jay-Z has to say either, or Puff Daddy or Flava Flav. They are — what’s the word? oh right! irrelevant.

    That’s because none has ever given the impression that they’ve thought about any of this stuff too deeply. They aren’t paid to do that and it isn’t something they’ve said interested them all that much. I don’t think they can offer all that much on the subject anymore than I can offer much on the current state of hip-hop, which I listen to casually but not a whole lot.

    (I’ve reached an age where keeping up with the latest popular music becomes kind’a pathetic unless it’s my job).

    It’s nice when celebrities endorse people we like. I used to think it cool when some rock stars seemed to be progressive people. But it ain’t all that relevant to how I think. The Reagan Democrat demographic I grew up around wasn’t gonna vote for Dukakis because the Boss thought it was a good idea.

    I don’t see why we don’t give other communities the same credit. I mean, are Latino voting patterns really affected one iota by DY saying he likes McCain? I don’t recall any rappers showing up at the Congressional Black Caucus dinner.

    And the reason I think we should bury the term is because it does get caught up in the whole hippie-becomes-stockbroker thing, or rapper becomes rich and famous thing, or J-Lo having to tell everybody she’s still from the block thing, and seems to me, anyway, to totally ignore the realities of people’s lives.

    Sometimes I think we use the term sell-out because we’re all a little bit scared of the fact that we wouldn’t act any differently, and we are worried that the relevant celebrity (and it’s always a celebrity, usually in the entertainment industry) is actually representing “his people” whatever that is.

    And props to Marisol for pointing out that Latino voters might vote republican for like, real reasons. They may not be ones we’d agree with, but a pretty sizeable percentage of people with Spanish last names voted for Dubya and they can’t all be just stupid or “sell-outs.”

    Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 12:38 pm ¶

35. Eric Daniels wrote:

    Big Man, Tavis show is in the Black Community and like Adolph Reed said Obama stands for nothing but his own politcal ambition. Obama has held the Black Voter at arms length to appeal to white voters and Smiley and others are correct to call him on his total disrespect for voters he needs to win in November.

    Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 3:17 pm ¶

36. Jess wrote:

    @Eric Daniels–

    you’d rather he had no ambition? Anybody in politics has ambition. The late sainted MLK had ambition, it just wasn’t a personal kind. You have ambition if you want to anything in life.

    Obama has done really well in states with large AA populations, so if he has so much disrespect the black voters, who put him in office in Illinois, sure don’t seem to think so. Nor do the black voters in the Mississippi primary, or North Carolina.

    Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 7:21 pm ¶

37. shah8 wrote:

    just an aside:

    JC Watts is a non-self-hating black republican. He’s not Michael Steele, and more like Charles Barkely and Lynn Swann. Just really conservative, not crazy or particularly mean-spirited or willing to abide by so much of the republican crap.

    Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 8:51 pm ¶

38. Nina V. wrote:

    “As a person who (I assume) hails from the lower class, Daddy Yankee wouldn’t really be “selling out” in this case, I think he is really “forgetting where he came from.” The reason why I say this is because his music isn’t exactly politically charged or conscious in any way. He is a club banger factory, and makes no attempt to bring anything wholesome, uplifting, or complex into his music. Also, his name is “Daddy Yankee” which can be construed to reference that america is the “man” or the “father” presiding over the rest of the world, an image that he puts on to elevate himself, in his own mind, to the status of a american man.”

    I must say this, Daddy Yankee wasn’t always a club banger. In the 90’s he put socially conscious music and cried foul whenever the Puerto Rican lower classes and minorities were discrimanted against. Daddy Yankee stuck around, but his name when he first came out was “Winchestah 30 30,” so let’s say, he has gone through a very interesting transformation in the last few years. While I’m offended by him backing McCain, I have to defend him here because he does have a record of bringing important social and political issues to light in the past. He just happened to make it big with “Gasolina” and correctly saw this as his big chance. It’s sad that now that he has some kind of economic power and fame, he chooses to steer away from those 90’s songs that would make a bigger impact now.

    I had a class mate in college who told us his father said everyone is a Democrat until they start working or making money. Then they become Republicans.

    I’m a 24 year old Puerto Rican with a Poli Sci degree and in 2004 I supported George Bush. I even called my family and asked them to vote Bush. Why? I’m very conservative, pro-life and believe in strong national security measures. Since I made, what I believe was a mistake in 2004, I’ll go easy on Daddy Yankee for making it in 2008. I know what kind of elements would make a young Puerto Rican support a Republican platform.

    Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 7:24 pm ¶

39. Nikki wrote:

    The thrust of this post seems to deal with the problematic question of intent. IN reality, one can never really evaluate the intent of a person’s actions, whether a famous personality like Daddy Yankee or not. I think it would be helpful if we all would focus less on casting judgments on whether a certain action is or is not “selling out.” It’s kind of pointless.

    Furthermore, I’m all for people casting a vote based on solid information. However, I think voting at least partially based on race or gender identity is completely valid.

    As much as either party harps on “change” and whatnot, all policy matters must be cleared either by Congress or ultimately by the courts. In reality, there are few factors on which to base one’s vote that are even remotely concrete.

    I think it’s not only valid, but actually completely reasonable and even wise to vote based on the “face” a candidate will give the U.S. on the world stage- whether because of his/her overall philosophy/world view, or if s/he happens to (re)present a minority population.

    How foreign powers view the U.S. is a particularly salient issue at the moment and furthermore, any strides that can be made in race/gender conflicts and the associated politics, would certainly be a boon to all forms of progress in our country.

    Posted 21 Sep 2008 at 6:09 am ¶