Rev. Jeremiah Wright Reponds to the New York Times - Racism and Code Words
by Guest Contributor Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, originally published at Multiplicative Identity
(When Big Media repeatedly called Rev. Jeremiah Wright “fiery,” what are they REALLY trying to say? Hmm.)
Barack Obama’s former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, responds to the NY Times in a letter I wish I’d written.
Please note that in the Times’ introduction to Wright’s letter, the newspaper calls it “fiery”. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve heard this man referred to as fiery in the Big Media lately. The use of this word is no mistake.
See, fiery is a code word. I write much and often of code words used in Big Media to describe minorities. Code words are used in order to nullify whatever it is the minority says or does, without coming right about and saying so. Their use for this purpose has been happening for centuries. A scan of newspaper articles from the late 1800s make this quite clear, when “objective” pieces refer to single mothers as “loose women,” etc. It’s still happening today.
How many non-Hispanic white women do we see called “sassy” by the media? Sassy is a term generally reserved for minority women. But what is “sassing”? It is what children do to parents when they are disobedient. Cute, rebellious, and ultimately harmless. Code words put people “in their place,” and serve to make white people comfortable.
How many non-Hispanic whites are called “fiery”? Fiery. Let’s think about this word a bit. Who is fiery? People who are out of control. But used in conjunction with a piece about a black minister, there are even more sinister connotations. Burning crosses. Fiery. Firebombed churches. Fiery. Hell, brimstone. Fiery. A loaded word if ever there was one.
Code words I’ve seen often used for African Americans: bold, articulate, combative, activist, earthy, outspoken, dignified (only generally used in a photo caption of someone at a funeral, usually a woman in a hat), well-spoken, angry. Fiery.
For Latinos/Hispanics, the code words and phrases tend to include: hot, spicy, passionate, white-hot, red-hot, feisty, fiery, hip-shaking, hot tamale, whole enchilada, newly-arrived, emotional, “caliente”, etc. We are often assigned “South of the border” qualities, regardless of where we were born.
Read Rev. Wright’s letter here:
March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959Dear Jodi:
Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.
For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.
I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.
I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.
Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it “in his hand.” Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.
As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed “sound byte” and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.
I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.
Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s “Spiritual Biography.” Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of “Hannity and Colmes” is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.
The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or “spin” because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.
Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.” The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.
Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
LL wrote:
This letter is a very powerful indictment of journalism in general, with the necessity of choosing one soundbite or point out of hours of conversation in order to create a piece.
However, I’m quite troubled by the way that Wright refers to the journalist’s Jewish identity. What does Rosh Hashanna have to do with the New York Times? Why does the Moses story belon to the journalist? I also think that the “confused head” comment is codedly sexist. (That one could be just me, but even if it isn’t, it’s a horribly condescending turn of phrase.)
The points he made about Obama being related to Muslims, and knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia is one of the major reasons I’m voting for him, and I’m glad to see someone calling that out as the asset it is.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 8:15 am ¶
ceecee wrote:
“The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is…”
lol @ confused head.
But on a more serious note, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard people complaining about how journalists from NYT twist an interview and make something positive into something an outright ugly lie. I don’t know who’s in charge at NYT but they’re fast losing their reputation in my eyes.
Sensationalism may sell, but the truth will always come out. What happened to journalistic integrity?
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 8:20 am ¶
Celeste wrote:
@LL,
I think the references to Judiasm are because Rev. Wright is a religious man so he might consider someone’s faith when having a conversation with him or her more than someone else would. Also, the conversation could have veered into the reporter’s own faith as well. Maybe he feels more betrayed because he sees Judiasm/Jews as spiritual kinsmen and wouldn’t expect such a distortion of his words from a jewish reporter.
Just some ideas, though. I didn’t quite get the Rosh Hoshanna reference…was is Rosh Hoshanna when they spoke?
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 8:57 am ¶
esperanza13 wrote:
“I also think that the “confused head” comment is codedly sexist.”
LL - I can see why one might read “confused head” as a sexist term. In a sense, referring to a woman’s “confused head” can be read as every bit as coded - and as dismissive- as “fiery” for a black man or “caliente” for a latina woman.
But, personally, I don’t think that’s what Rev. White was doing. I think he’s saying that he placed faith in her - her ability to write the truth and her interest in incovering the truth. And he was misled. I believe that he’s saying that if she genuinely and honestly believes that the story she printed was the truth then she is deeply “confused” as to what the truth is. If she knows that she spun the story and presented a biased, twisted version of the truth, then she is a liar, dishonest and, frankly, a bad journalist.
As far as the Rev’s comment regarding “your Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible” I think that, within the context of the article, one could argue that it makes sense. Rev. White’s point is and has been that Sen. Obama is someone who is capable of relating to people of differnt cultures, races, ethnicities and relgions. That he is someone who understands that different branches of Judaism and Islam. Which is why I think that he chose to use a story from the Hebrew Bible to illustrate his point about Obama, rather than a story from the New Testament. Because a story from the Old Testament is relatable to someone who was raised in the Jewish faith - whereas a story from the New Testament is not. It also seems likely that, given that the interview was on Sen. Obama’s spiritual journey, the Ms. Kantor may have shared some of her own spiritual background with Reverand White - which may be why he referenced the Hebrew Bible and Roshashana in his letter to her. He references Lent as well, and I think he is trying to be respectful in acknowledging that Lent, the New Testament, and Christian holy days are not the only persepctive - that there are other holy days and holy texts in the world that have just as much validity and, well, holiness.
Frankly, I found the letter to be quite respectful, coherent and cogent. There wasn’t much about it that was “fiery.” Instead, it seemed like a letter from someone who is disappointed, someone who expected more out of a professional journalist, and a paper that touts itself as forward-thinking, honest and respectable. If anyone has been condescended to in this situation, it’s Reverend White.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 9:02 am ¶
macintyre wrote:
From the link you posted, it looks like it’s actually BET that characterized the letter as “fiery,” not the NYT.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 9:30 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Translation of “fiery”: We misled people and Wright called us on it. We blame him for taking us to task.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 9:34 am ¶
jmn wrote:
The lesson I learned from reading this letter: If you go into any interview, you should bring your own audio recorder. If you are misrepresented or your audio is taken out of context, then release the original audio so the audience can know what is said.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 10:40 am ¶
islandgirl550 wrote:
I totally agree with esperanza13. The letter was thoughtful and insightful. And, I agree with Rev. Wright that at this time we may need someone who knows the difference between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. As well as someone who can relate to many religions, creeds, races, and beliefs without a “we are better than you” undertone.
Didn’t see much of that fire talk, thought. It’s funny how there is so much surprise at what goes on in black churches. If anything, that’s the one thing that’s remained consistant in black America since slavery.
Also, in the media we are portrayed as loud, singing people, praising the lord with a chorus of “the lord will provide” and “amens” at every turn. That so-called fiery speak happens all the time.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 10:44 am ¶
Nadra wrote:
Yes, it was BET who called Wright’s remarks fiery, but the New York Times has consistently called Wright’s sermons inflammatory, incendiary and controversial, saying that they “drew fire,” so, to me, it’s pretty much the same thing. I thought it would help to see the Jodi Kantor article that Wright is complaining about. Here it is. As a journalist, my take on this is that Wright is unsosphisticated when it comes to dealing with the media. The number of years he’s been in prominence would indicate otherwise, but, it basically sounds like he got too comfy with this reporter, ended up running his mouth off about Obama and regretted it, kind of like Samantha Power calling Hillary a “monster” to a reporter. You simply can’t make any remark that you wouldn’t want to see in print to a journalist. At least, Power did tell the reporter that her comment was off-the-record, which a reporter of integrity would have respected. On the other hand, Jodi Kantor was clearly trying to make Wright sound like some kind of a radical deviant in the article and stir up trouble for Obama in the process. She cites him as being one of the first within his church to oppose apartheid and welcome gays and lesbians, as if this were abnormal. Christians have a duty to stand up against oppression, which the Bible states in several passages. As for gays and lesbians, there is nothing in scripture that would make welcoming them to church wrong. Lastly, who cares if the situation between Obama and his pastor gave Sharpton pause. Sharpton has never endorsed Obama anyway, and, if he did, that might be controversial, too.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 11:20 am ¶
Jasmine wrote:
An amazing letter. I think Nadra got it right re: Rev. Wright’s naivete with Ms. Kantor. I don’t know that I’d characterize Rev. Wright as naive with regards to engaging the media. Excessive candor?
As to the references to her Jewish heritage, I can only imagine he probably engaged her a bit about her own spiritual experience and background — not hard to imagine in a two hour conversation.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 11:40 am ¶
jd wrote:
whoever called that letter “firey” has obviously lived his/her life surrounded by totally emotionless cyborgs. annoyed? clearly, but also completely calm and civil throughout.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 12:03 pm ¶
macintyre wrote:
This is a really insightful thread. The exact same left-wing rhetoric from a white person would undoubtably be characterized as “impassioned” or maybe “ranting” or “crazy,” but certainly not “dangerous” or “fiery.”
The mixture of racial/ethnic + economic justice has always really, really scared the powers that be in this country…
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
Big Man wrote:
The interview was done a long time ago, so maybe it came around the time of the Jewish holiday.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 2:02 pm ¶
EH wrote:
Suzanne Malveux (sp?) just referred to Rev. Wright’s words as “fiery” on CNN lol. I immediately thought of racialicious.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 3:30 pm ¶
Heather wrote:
Rosh Hashana is nowhere near Lent. Without further context that comment bothers me a little bit.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 10:50 pm ¶
bdsista wrote:
Having worked for CNN and other publications, it is unethical for the journalist doing the story to expect the interviewee to be “experienced”. I do not accept that Rev. Wright was naive, it is not his responsibility to be anything other than himself and answer the questions. It is incumbent upon the journalist to not mislead the interviewee. To set up an interview saying it was a Spiritual Biography and then twist it into how Barack is distancing himself and saying other negative things about the Pastor and Obama is deceptive. A Spiritual Biography is about the person’s spiritual life. Wright has a legitimate gripe and his points are valid and I would imagine that she discussed her religion along with him to make him feel comfortable and manipulated him. Just because this man is a public figure does not make him lack empathy. Most Pastors try to connect at some level with people. That is a part of their training, his analogies between the Jewish and Christian faith are long time history spoken of in the Black church. Blacks and Jews fought in the civil rights movement together. Blacks and Jews have undergone their own holocausts. Most Christians understand that the Old Testament is part of the Torah and that the New Testament is where the divide occurs but there is an understanding that Christians and Jews believe in the same God. So there is a lot that Blacks and Jews share in terms of history. That may also explain how Wright feels betrayed and that it would come from someone who at some level would understand the shared history. Ms. Kantor has not only done a disservice to the profession, to the NYTimes, but also added sadly to the breach between Blacks and Jews.
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 8:57 am ¶
Larettj wrote:
For those confused about the Roshashana reference, both Roshashana and Lent are times of repentance where new life and possibilities are possible. It had nothing to do with timing. Wright was simply suggesting that his own faith and the faith of others led him to believe that the NYT could change. He gave the journalist the benefit of the doubt in his interview because of his faith. Hope that clears things up.
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 10:00 am ¶
Gorgeous Black Women wrote:
Almost all of this letter applies to nearly every newspaper and cable news network in this country.
That they played a part in outing Valerie Plame slipped my mind. They endangered her life and have possibly caused the death of some of her contacts. It’s something she wasn’t allowed to comment on, but stated that there were some “consequences.” This is a paper whose biggest story in recent history was that the governor had slept with an overpriced prostitute who is only 4 years older than his daughter. For a vindictive and self-righteous Attorney General turned governor is juicy, the smutty details should be left to the NY Post.
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 5:51 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Good on Rev. Wright.
He should have had the formality to address the reporter in print as “Ms. Kantor”, and the “confused head” comment was uncalled for. Otherwise, perfect.
The Gray Lady is a bit of a gold-digger, and slants coverage toward business interests. Her reporters generally go along, particularly because they are relatively well paid for reporters.
Re: fiery
Let us remember that PREACHERS are often described as “fiery”. Race doesn’t enter into it - style does. The prototypical American fiery preacher was (white) Jonathan Edwards, he of the famous “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” sermon many of us may remember from American literature survey classes. Also synonymous is “fire and brimstone”, used to describe a preacher or his sermon. High-energy call to repentance, avoiding the happy-clappy style many white megachurch preachers use.
Reporters in general are not well informed about religious history and culture, and the more prestigious the paper, the more likely the ignorance. The Southern cultural tradition Protestant “low” churches, white and black, tend to retain the rhetorical tradition of the “fire and brimstone” sermon, now lost in Northern cultural tradition churches and “high” churches. Trinity is a bit anomalous in having the Southern rhetorical tradition while being a member of the cool-emotion Northern tradition UCC (formerly Congregational, cooled considerably since Jonathan Edwards’ day).
(here’s an Episcopal stereotype for you: the “frozen chosen” = a congregation that doesn’t show emotion during the service and a pastor that gives sermons in the vocal style of an academic. Guilty as charged.
Posted 05 Apr 2008 at 3:05 pm ¶
semantics wrote:
It’s “Reform Jews,” not “Reformed Jews,” and “Rosh Hashana(h)” is two words.
Posted 06 Apr 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶
Come again? wrote:
“I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.”
I find this claim offensive. Has he fogotten political icons such as Washington, Lincoln, Carter?
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 2:57 pm ¶
david wrote:
I just thought “fiery” meant….well “fiery.” I pray that one day black leadership will discontiinue its path towards forcing young minorities into a perpertual state of victimhood. Its probably the single biggest impediment to progess in the black comuinity to date. Let these young folks decide for themselves whether they are victims or not. All that men like Jeremiah wright and Michal Dyson are doing is seducing young and vulneralbe audience with their elequent and often painfully long and curtutios explanations of the nuances of something as simple as the word “fiery”. Why not focus on how the blck community can help itself? Why not discriminate a little too? Are all black people hard working tolerant people being held down by the man? Believe it or not there are black poeple too who make no effort to improve themsleves, their family or community, and then listen to Jermiah Wright speak, and find the justification they need to blame their failures on “the white man.”
One of the worst thing you can do to a young mind is teach them that they are not resposnible for their actions. Please give these young kids a chnce and don’t force the anger of generations past on their young minds. Let them decide for themsleves.
Posted 29 Apr 2008 at 8:08 pm ¶
raetsel wrote:
“I just thought “fiery” meant….well “fiery.””
exactly, david.
If anyone is stigmatized as being “fiery” it is people with red hair, regardless of race or color otherwise.
As for the rest of the words you listed as supposedly racist code-words, not once have I ever associated any race with any of them, & I would bet that most people, in fact, do not either. The mere fact that you apparently do - just because the race of a writer is different than your own - would be the only racist thing going on in the majority of situations involving said words. So what? Now everyone has to check the race of a person before describing their personality? Never use the words you listed unless you know for certain a person is white because to any other race it’s a code?? Way to promote racism, idiots.
Oh, and you might want to watch generalizing as you did here: “We are often assigned “South of the border” qualities…”
It could rightfully offend people who live south of the border and only serves to prove who the one with a racist attitude towards simple words is.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 3:25 pm ¶