BBC: Black genes = obesity and failure as humans

Or that's what one might come away with if you are to believe your eyes.

The BBC recently collected about 312 trillion internet 'clicks' and kept nearly a billion television viewers tuned in with their many articles and newscasts about nutcase Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. James Watson and his insanely racist remarks in which he claimed that "Africans were less intelligent than white people".  My feeling about these reports was 'good, the BBC is trying', but then today arrived, and the latest crop of news stories heralded by the BBC include some shockingly stupid and racist projections and insinuations. I'm talking about the kind of insinuation made when you place your ex-girlfriends picture next to the word whore. No one can say you said it, but you did.

LINK

In this case it's a picture of a fat black man, eating a huge frosting covered pastry, placed next to the headline Diet choices 'written in genes'  

And if that wasn't bad enough, a BBC link next to this article lead me to THIS! Without the (purposeful?) linking of the two, the claims about human evolution would have been nothing more than an amusing waste of my time, but being linked they take on a whole different character.

LINK

I'm sure the BBC would defend these articles and their sad choice of illustrative accompaniment, but I will never believe that NO ONE caught this all-too obvious insinuatuion beforehand. Much like the good old U.S. of A., England has many racists, and there are some at the BBC having a good laugh today.

This sort of insideous attack on the very dignity of black people must be stopped.

•  I like tips

  as much as anyone else. Thank you

  by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:49:09 AM PDT

  •  Your title is over the top, but I agree with your

    take on the two articles. The pic in the first article is stupid and racist, and the Brave New World painted by this LSE whack scientist in the second piece could also have been published in the Nazi party journal in the 1930s:

    The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

    Ugh.

    by brainwave on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:04:07 AM PDT

•  I wonder how they explain all obese white

  people that are all around me?

  Racism seems to be getting worse across the board.
  It's shameful.

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:56:51 AM PDT

  •  Making fun of another group

    is a cheap way for people to find common cause.  It's a unifying habit, albeit destructive to the targets of their barbs.
    I don't think there's much to be gained by defining it as racist, since it's basically not antagonistic towards the targeted race or gender or ethnic group.
    Since most everything we do has a genetic component, the latest revelations about the connection between genes and weight aren't particularly earthshaking.

    My mother spent a life time asserting that she didn't eat very much because she never gained any weight.  In fact she did eat a lot; so much that someone else would have gotten fat.  Like so many people, she argued from the results, rather than the process and never hesitated to give good "advice" to people she considered too fat.

    Perhaps if more people had children and paid close attention to how they develop, much of what they're studying wouldn't come as such a surprise.

    by hannah on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:01:29 AM PDT

    •  It's a play on an old stereotype

      the fat goofy faced, always jolly idiot black retard as happy as a bumble bee with his mouth full of .......... Your choice here
      1 watermelon
      2 fried chicken  
      3 a big fat donut

      by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:14:05 AM PDT

•  This is a joke diary right?

  Because the article is referring to genes, not race.

  And race is only a very superficial genetic category.

  And since Britain is a multiracial society, it's not unusual for them to have generic pictures of people of multiple races.

  And their related stories links are automatic not decided by an editorial committee.

  And ... oh sheesh ... it's too early.

  by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:59:07 AM PDT

  •  well

    Britain's are sooooo good they would never be racist. Some British are resentful that after dominiating the world and claiming other people's land as the British empire now they resent all the British "subjects" of color moving to England.  The skin head movement has following there, too.

    by TexMex on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:18:49 AM PDT

    •  Wuh

      Apart from those in their eighties who remember the empire before WW2, no one here really cares about it. And of course there are xenophobes here, just as there are in every bloody country. But I don't see how that has anything to do with a photo of dude eating a cream bun illustrating a story about a pressing health issue.

      The skinheads originated from Britain in fact, and had nothing to do with race to begin with, more of a class war. In fact, it was heavily influenced by Caribbean culture, hence you got Ska.

      Unfortunately the subculture was subverted by fascists in the National Front who preyed upon their disadvantage and persuaded some to blame their problems on immigrants, as Billo is trying to do with Mexicans and Muslims, as is every other right wing noise machine in the world.

      Ignorance is never bliss: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      by Grass on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:32:00 AM PDT

      •  JUST grass?

        by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:50:34 AM PDT

  •  Thank god the sanity kicked in quick in the

    comments. Bravo.

    This diary suggests that if they put a picture of a fat white man then you would suggest that the bbc was being prejudiced against whites... but somehow I doubt it.

    Jamesbrown, it's racist to treat people differently for superficial differences, and you're treating this photo of a fatty differently because it's of a black man. Just pointing that out.

    by Grass on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:21:54 AM PDT

    •  And the KKK

      is only trying to protect white heritage and "keepin' our women pure". LOL Your cute!

      by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:43:32 AM PDT

      •  I'm trying to decide whether you're overly

        sensitive to anything that might be twisted to be non-PC or just insane. On the off chance you are not a crazy, I just wanted to point out this in the 2nd article you linked:

        Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

        That seems decidedly non racist to me. The photo (as photos seem to matter a lot to you) is of two white hominids, one of which is tall and athletic, the other a squat ugly thing with no difference in complexion, although I suppose if you squint the one on the left might be mistaken for Hitler... or maybe George Orwell... I dunno).

        Not sure what you meant by the 'Just grass?' comment.

        by Grass on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:07:31 AM PDT

        •  Did you really think I was referring

          to the photo on the second article? No, you didn't.  And how in the world did you miss the photo I actually have in the diary? If obtuseness was your goal, congratulations.  

          by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:19:31 AM PDT

          •  Write a diary about race on Daily Kos

            and right away the admonitions not to be "so sensitive" and the references to political correctness pop up.

            by blindyone on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:50:52 AM PDT

  •  Have the person who read this to you

    describe the photo that accompanies the article.

    by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:41:32 AM PDT

  •  I'm glad you find it funny.

    Did that picture have you rolling out of your chair?

    by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:45:32 AM PDT

    •  No

      Your diary had me rolling my eyes.

      by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:19:18 AM PDT

      •  I bet you hate Hillary too

        Admit it. Go ahead, be a man about it and fess up.

        by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:21:22 PM PDT

        •  Er no.

          by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:05:44 PM PDT

  •  This is a joke comment, right?

    You can look at the picture and think that it is just a generic picture to accompany a news article on the relationship between obesity and DNA?

    by blindyone on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:45:25 AM PDT

    •  Yes, it's just a generic picture

      the diarist is way overboard.

      Now if the article had actually said something about the genes of black people in specific being in some way inferior, then you might have a case.

      And frankly I find it bizarrely racist to think that a news organisation can't use a picture of a black person to illustrate something affecting humans generally.

      by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:18:54 AM PDT

      •  Then it would be OK to put your mother's picture

        next to a story on prostitution? Anytime you mention "genes" in any relation to blacks you'd damn sure better not be talking about abnormalities or you will succeed in offending anyone black or sympathetic to the problems blacks face. That picture just as well could have been of a black boy wearing burlap eating watermelon, or had the words 'yessir boss, I's do's loves my melons'. I guess you would have considered that humor Americana.

        by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:31:04 PM PDT

        •  My mother is not a prostitute

          The person in the picture apparently likes to eat.

          by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:08:11 PM PDT

          •  This is the point at which I would tell my ex

            that she is right and apologize for arguing with her. Then I'd make a mental note to myself to remember this subject as one that she simply will not ever comprehend and not to bring it up again. Goodnite honey!

            by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:15:35 AM PDT

      •  It DID say something about the genes

        of black people. It said that blacks have bad genes that make them fat and silly and completely satisfied in life with little more than a big god damned donut. And it said it without using a single word.

        by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:56:32 PM PDT

  •  Naive

    I think it's rather naive to describe Britain as a "multiracial society."  It may be a place in which members of many different races live, but it is still a place that is overwhelmingly controlled by whites.  This struck me when I watched The Queen.  The Tony Blair character praised the Queen as a symbol of the nation.  And in a very real sense she is.  She is a white English woman.  There cannot be a Queen from India or Bangladesh or Nigeria or Jamaica - there can't even be a Queen from Ireland.  She is a reminder of whose country it is.  Americans (at least some of them) are more upfront about confronting the fact that we live in a racist country.  Europeans have a long way to go.

    by truthvsbush on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:53:20 AM PDT

    •  I think you rather miss the point of a monarchy

      Unless that was sarc, then forgive me.

      Actually, the current queen is descended from Germans and it's entirely possible (though probably quite unlikely) that an heir might marry someone from Jamaica, although I doubt they would do it for the sake of being fair and having a lovely multiracial monarchy.

      Though I agree our elected parliament isn't representational yet - 2.3% are from ethnic minorities compared with the 8% total population. On that count America is doing pretty well, 16% of the House of Representatives is from an ethnic minority, compared with a 25% total population (all African and Asian American rep.s are Democrat, and most Hispanics, btw - doesn't say much that we don't already know about the GOP though.)

      by Grass on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:42:42 AM PDT

      •  I Didn't Know There Was A Point

        To a monarchy, other than to symbolize the dominance of one group over others.

        by truthvsbush on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:49:06 AM PDT

        •  Meh

          Only if you are terribly offended by the colour of somebodies skin rather than who that person is.

          by Grass on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:55:53 AM PDT

          •  Doesn't Necessarily

            Have to do with skin color.  The reason the Queen is descended from Germans is because the Protestants needed a monarch who could solidify their domination of the Catholics, so they reached out to the Protestant Elector of Hanover.  The monarchy is a symbol of control, that's all.  How likely do you think it would be that an English monarch would marry a Muslim, or a Jew, for that matter?  And why not - because it would not be acceptable to the dominant group in English society.  Do you think Diana would have been so beloved if she had been Bengali or Jamaican, even if she had acted exactly the same?  And don't say yes without really thinking about it.  How would the press have spun her infidelity, would she have been painted as the injured party in the marriage or would she have been painted as a slut?  Wouldn't the people who buy the tabloids who cried at Diana's funeral have been saying about a non-white Diana, "That's what happens when you intermarry with these inferior sorts."  
            On race, in my experience, nothing is more dangerous in perpetrating a racist society than the myth that one lives in a "color blind" society.  Members of minorities rarely have any illusions about that.  It is only the majority that thinks it is "color blind."

            by truthvsbush on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:39:24 AM PDT

            •  I'm not going to make excuses for the Monarchy

              or the church of England for that matter, I'm not a huge fan of either, but the fact of the matter is both don't have any meaningful power any more and while they do symbolise Britain, they symbolise it in a good way. And it wouldn't make much sense to have a Jamaican symbolise the UK just as it wouldn't make any sense to have a Welshman as President of Venezuela.

              Having said that, religion (i.e.Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism or Islam) plays little or no importance in British society, and while it's unlikely that you would ever have a present day monarch marrying into one of these religions it's simply due to that fact that they are the minority. I don't doubt there would be media interest, but it's probably not going to be negative, just on how the royal family is going to handle the shitty traditions that are passed down (what with the Monarch being the head of the CoE). They didn't love Diana because she was white and upper class (if that was the case they would love Camilla). It was simply for the way she treated people. Oh, and there wasn't any resentment as far as I can remember for her dating an Egyptian.

              Don't get me wrong, we're far from being perfect, you just have to do a quick google search for race riots to see there have been a few in the past decade alone, but I don't think it has anything to do with the Queen who is supposed to unite us all as British or Members of the Commonwealth or whatever. It's a symbol of unity, not dominance.  

              by Grass on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:18:00 PM PDT

    •  Don't be silly

      Britain is multiracial in the sense that there are lots of people from all sorts of races there. Take a walk around London one day. That there are lots of people from all races there is not a big deal, even if there are some racist rightwingers who go on about Anglo-Saxons and stuff.

      And the Queen is irrelevant to this diary, unless you want to argue that since the Queen is descended from a bunch of Germans, then the Beeb is racist.

      by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:22:36 PM PDT

      •  London

        Is my second favorite city (after NYC) precisely because of its diversity.  But is St. John's Wood as racially diverse as South London?  Is the Upper East Side as racially diverse as Jackson Heights?  If you don't see who's running these places you're just blind.

        by truthvsbush on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:59:57 PM PDT

        •  Of course

          the vast majority of people in power in the UK are white. That's obvious.

          But it's utterly irrelevant to this diary. Using a picture of a black person to illustrate a point about eating is not ipso facto racist just because he's tubby and just because Britain is not a racial utopia.

          by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:02:37 PM PDT

          •  Racism is like Porn

            I know it when I see it.
            I have an acquaintance who is the most racist person I know. He has hated blacks since the day I met him in 1973, and his hate has steadily grown since. (We were brought together and kept together by our jobs) The worst of it is that he honestly believes he is not racist. He says it every time we speak. He has this southern boy-speak and some weird rational for every hateful belief he has. It is ingrained in him. He would not see this use of this photo as racist. He would suggest that I may be too sensitive for perceiving it as such. I hate that I've heard the same response here on this great blog.

            by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:46:52 PM PDT

            •  Don't paint me as a racist

              You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

              by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:03:16 PM PDT

              •  Didn't Mean To

                I don't know you and I tried to avoid making any accusations of personal racism.  But I think that when somebody describes an image as racially offensive, it's not a good idea to respond by telling them that they are being overly sensitive and that they should just suck it up.  Step back and look at broader social contexts (that's why it is relevant to remember who is running things in both the US and the UK), and I think you can understand why black people often perceive racism in things that seem perfectly innocuous to white people, even white people who believe that they are liberal and not racist.  I hate the fact that the expression "politically correct" has become an epithet - isn't being "correct" supposed to be a good thing?

                by truthvsbush on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:39:58 AM PDT

                •  It's critically important

                  that accusations of racism have some evidence for them, and not simply the subjective interpretation of a picture by one person.

                  I'm all for bringing in social context to interpret statements and images, and to use that to demonstrate racism. But there has to be something significant in the statement or image itself. In this case, we just have a black guy eating something in a story about how  genes may predispose people to eating. That in itself is not racist, just because there happen to be a bunch of other people in this world who think that black people are somehow genetically inferior.

                  It's not a question of the diarist being overly sensitive. It's a question of him not having the slightest evidence for his accusation of racism.

                  I'm all for political correctness, in the sense you suggest. But I'm also for well-grounded correctness.

                  Note that the BBC ran an article on how Neanderthals could very well have been redheads. Not a very exciting article, perhaps a true claim, perhaps not. But one would hardly accuse them of fostering anti-redhead sentiment (and violence) in the UK just for running it.

                  by mapantsula on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:26:28 AM PDT

                  •  You Don't Get It

                    Sorry.

                    by truthvsbush on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:45:55 AM PDT

                    •  I'm not willing to say

                      my imagining something makes it true.

                      Sorry.

                      by mapantsula on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:01:03 PM PDT

                      •  Are You Just Obtuse Or ...

                        This diarist found the images to be racially offensive.  He did not "imagine" that reaction.  I suspect that a large number of black people would have a similar reaction.  The stereotype of blacks as "shiftless" creatures only interested in gorging themselves on fried chicken, donuts, and watermelon, is very much a part of the legacy of racism.  When you couple the image that plays into that stereotype with references to "genetic" predispositions, at the same time that an addle-pated scientist is making highly-publicized ravings about the genetic inferiority of blacks, then it is by no means paranoiac to perceive the BBC presentation as racist.
                        I suppose that if it turned out that the BBC staffer who put this together was black, then it would be clear that there is nothing to this.  However, if that is not the case, then you either have a BBC that was extraordinarily insensitive to something that could be perceived as racist, or something that was, as the diarist suggests, deliberately racist - either way, the criticism of the BBC is justified.
                        I suppose you could say that there is no proof that those good ol' boys down in Jena intended to call to mind images of lynchings when they hung up a noose - after all, a noose is just a piece of rope and they might have just been making a reference to the game of "Clue" with Colonel Mustard being murdered in the conservatory with the rope.  No proof of racism there.
                        Finally, your reference to the article about Neanderthals and red hair is absurd.  I don't recall red-heads being enslaved and denied all human rights based on their hair color.
                        There is a fine line between being obtuse about racial issues and actually being racist.  If you had responded to my last post by saying that you were willing to accept the fact that the diarist might have had a different reaction to this than you did, I would have been more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Since you insist on not even considering the possibility of the validity of the diarist's point of view, I'm beginning to wonder.

                        by truthvsbush on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:23:43 PM PDT

                        •  This is insane

                          The diarist is making an accusation of racism on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Because I think that accusations of racism are actually, really fucking serious accusations, I think that it's imperative to have actual evidence for them.

                          Now, if he had said: gee, I think this is an unfortunate picture to have, that may have been something to say. But he went overboard and said far more than that.

                          To assume that the BBC is racist simply on the basis of his own interpretation of what they must have intended is absolute insanity, beyond the limits of what actual intelligent, productive, effective discourse about racism can do in actually helping end racism.

                          Your point about the possibility of a black staffer demonstrates precisely that he went overboard. He has absolutely no idea what that newsroom was like, or why that picture was used. And yet he felt entitled to slander an entire news organisation because he it makes him feel all wonderful and insightful. Or something.

                          by mapantsula on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:35:34 PM PDT

                          •  The Other Way Around

                            When somebody, or some organization, does something that is racially insensitive, the burden ought to be on them to show an innocent explanation.  The BBC is a powerful organization that can take care of itself, and I wouldn't give a shit about "slandering" the organization.  It is a white-run organization in a white-run society that did something offensive to blacks.  Put the heat on them, not on the guy who raises questions about it.
                            And racism can't be ended through "discourse."  It will only end when there is a change in power relationships.  One way that changes is by forcing powerful white organizations not to do things that attack the dignity of black people.  In the meantime, any white person in the US or the UK is a racist - including me.  I'd like to think it could be otherwise just by having good intentions, but as Jules Winfield said in Pulp Fiction, "That shit ain't the truth.  But I'm trying, Ringo."

                            by truthvsbush on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:12:14 AM PDT

      •  I think what was meant is that

        England is not multiracial in anything BUT it's makeup. Everything else is white. White rulers, white owners, white judges, white white white white white...
        Other races don't really play a meaningful role. That's the impression I got anyways, and it is mostly true.

        by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:38:46 PM PDT

•  i actually think its the opposite of what you

  think.

  in britain, a black person can be a picture of a 'normal person' like you'd expect to see of a white person.

  it shows that this face represents all the people.

  by AmericanHope on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:16:49 AM PDT

  •  And in Germany calling one's mother a Ho

    is the greatest compliment possible.

    by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:20:32 AM PDT

    •  And in Kazakhstan

      they non sequitur.

      by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:21:54 AM PDT

      •  name a country

        then make a ridiculous claim about it. You have to learn to look for patterns. You know, like the one's they use in IQ tests. OOPS, sorry, I didn't mean to poke a weak spot. By the way, the term is simply sequitur.

        by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:07:17 PM PDT

        •  ?

          non sequitur

          Seriously, you have the weirdest chain of thought I have ever encountered.

          by mapantsula on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:05:19 PM PDT

          •  I know you are, but what am I, I know you are but

            Where you been PeeWee?
            The opposite is simply sequitur. Not as smart as you thought, are you?

            by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:11:00 AM PDT

•  Watson IQ

  I'm surprised that no one has brought up the irony of Watson's comments about the IQs of Africans (at least I haven't seen it).  Watson is usually cited by people to prove the point that IQ tests are pretty meaningless.  Watson has an IQ of 115 - OK, but not spectacular.  The fact that someone who participated in one of the most important scientific discoveries ever has a so-so IQ would seem to confirm that results of IQ tests can't be relied upon as proof of intelligence.  On the other hand, maybe Watson's recent inane remarks do confirm the validity of the test, at least as far as he is concerned.

  by truthvsbush on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:50:25 AM PDT

  •  Very good point

    I hadn't read that.

    by JamesBrown4ever on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:50:42 PM PDT