In the American chattel slavery system one of the most dangerous acts that threatened the enslaved African’s very existence—his or her life—were personal affronts, or behavior seen as discourteous or rude to the Caucasian ruling class and to white women in particular.* 
Insolent behavior was not tolerated and could lead to severe beatings or death by lynching.
By the accounts of some independent bloggers and the corporate media, many Anglo and African Americans that heard the much maligned Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s pre-Q & A comments at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., were not particularly offended or angry. However, Wright’s deft deflection and dismantling of questions posed by the white female moderator at the close of his formal comments, seemed to draw the ire of many people. Anglo-America was not by itself in chastising Wright; many African Americans and people of color unfamiliar with the double meaning, signifying (e.g. playing the dozens) tradition in African American and African Diaspora culture were offended by Wright’s one-upsmanship of the moderator. Undoubtedly, in another time Wright would have been considered an unruly, cheeky, mouthy, and insolent slave. In the Press Club transcript Wright even refers to this verbal jousting as “playing the dozens.”
Harvard scholar and professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. contextualizes the phenomenon of signifying in detail in his book The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary Criticism.
A book that deconstructs America’s historical aversion to so-called haughty and arrogant behavior by African Americans, which may be deeply engrained in America’s collective psyche, is William E. Weithoff’s The Insolent Slave. In the book preface, the series editor, Thomas Benson says: “insolence was a verbal activity, a communicative accomplishment exercised primarily through language that expressed disrespect for the master and, at least indirectly, denial of the legitimacy of his authority.” Wiethoff shows the reader “how slave insolence was regarded as a threat to (white) mens’s honor and women’s virtue.” A review of southern antebellum literature points out that “insolence was regarded as a moral failing on the part of slaves, who were obligated to respect the divinely assigned authority of their masters and mistresses.”
The aforementioned power dynamic (often played out on many gender, class and racial fronts) in daily human interaction is mentioned in the writings by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his commentary on rhetoric Aristotle says: “people expect to be respected by their inferiors; rulers demand the respect of the ruled.”
In the book The Slave States (Before the Civil War) the astute chronicler of southern antebellum plantation life, Frederick Law Olmsted, gives the reader insight into the psyche of the ruling class by recounting the words of a Tennessee planter’s wife. The planter’s wife was to have said: “If they was to think themselves equal to we…I don’t think white folks could abide it—they’re such vile saucy things.” In the same text Sella Martin (a black male slave employed on a ship in New Orleans) who questioned and argued with the ship’s captain was reminded by his master John P. Cady: “Your notions are too elevated for a slave, and if you are going on in this way insulting white people, some of them will kill you, and be justified for doing it.”
In a March 18, 2008, article in Counter Punch by racial apologist Tim Wise, an Anglo American himself, entitled “Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama and the Unacceptability of Truth: National Lies and Racial America” Wise says: “For most white folks, indignation just doesn’t wear well … what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as white people view it.”
Coming forward to 2008, supporters of the demonized Jeremiah Wright and beleaguered Pesidential candidate Barack Obama have said that both are susceptible to the aforementioned fate—figuratively and possibly literally—particularly in the case of assassination by the media.
Let us take a look at Wright’s supposed insolence during the Q & A session following his Press Club speech. Is it possible that Wright’s use of language is what the author Wheithoff referred to as disrespectful or a denial of authority?
Scenario 1.
Moderator: “You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn’t heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he’s not much of a church goer? Or does he doze off in the pews?”
Wright: “I just wanted to see—that’s your question. That’s your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don’t know? Ok.”
Scenario 2.
Moderator: “You have said that the mainstream media have taken you out of context. Can you explain what you meant in a sermon shortly after 9/11 when you said the United States had brought the terrorist attacks on itself?”
Wright: “Have you heard the whole sermon? Have you heard the whole sermon?”
Moderator: “I heard most of it.”
Wright: No, no, the whole sermon, yes or no? No, you haven’t heard the whole sermon? That nullifies that question….to quote the Bible, ‘be not deceived. God is not mocked…theses are Biblical principles.” [Applause and laughter from audience.]
Scenario 3.
Moderator: “Some critics have said that your sermons are unpatriotic. How do you feel about America and about being an American?”
Wright: “I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me…I served six years in the military. Does that make me unpatriotic? How many years did (Vice President) Cheyney serve?” [Applause and laughter from audience]
Etc. etc. etc. Another little understood theme (that we do not have space to dissect) is the unique, multi-dimensional use of English language structure by African and African Americans in various social and cultural settings (e.g. churches, on the street, in barbershops etc.).
In conclusion: The Jeremiah Wright situation and its perception by people of different experiences and backgrounds bring up many questions and issues. One issue that is readily apparent is how little Americans (e.g. Anglo Americans, African Americans and other ethnic groups) know about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery and capitalism, the English language its uses and development in American life, and the formation of the African American church as a change agent in slavery and modern times. Maybe one of these days America will be a more learned, introspective, critical thinking and informed society.
* Author Kathleen M. Blee in her book Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s notes that the Ku Klux Klan was dedicated to the sacred duty of protecting white womanhood.
I think Mr. Wright was too deferential to the moderator. He could have told her that what his parishoners do in the pews, whether they listend to sermons with their eyes closed, etc., is a pastoral matter under the veil of confidentiality.
On the heart of the controversy, about Israel, he was too deferential. Approving the existence of Israel as a Jewish-supremacist state (on stolen land, no less) is like, it seems to me now, approving some US people going to Africa and setting up a Jim Crow state–a Liberia where whites own and rule blacks.
The comments about slaves not criticizing their slavery in the owners’ presence applies to Israel. We may not discuss its racism, lest we offend–someone.
This raises the issue of denial. Can you say someone is in denial if they actively suppress discussion of the thing they’re supposedly in denial about? If not denial, how do we stoop so low in coutenancing such evil in our conduct that we not only do it but forbid others to mention that we do it? The attempt to cover it up bespeaks a guilty conscience.