I’ve just read through all the responses to this video on Pharyngula pointing out that the video is taken out of context, that it was designed to raise the controversial argument so it can be dissected by Michael Johnson, Colin Jackson (who have both been involved before in TV programmes that examined the effect of genes and environment on sprinting success, and have good grasps of the scientific arguments) and Denise Lewis in a studio discussion afterwards.
The Beeb has many flaws. Among the most serious is the desire for ‘balance’ that leads them to give more weight than is warranted to certain unscientific arguments and positions – the ‘both sides of the story’ fallacy. To quote only one side of the argument actually presented in order to accuse the BBC of racism or race apologetics is a gross misrepresentation of the actual problem, however.
I’m really getting the vibe that no-one on FTB has enjoyed the Olympics at all. I’ve personally had a fantastic Olympic experience, and think the BBC’s coverage has been wonderful. Our athletes have been terrific. Both organizational and sporting success has been beyond all expectations, and I haven’t even been late to work – if anything my trains have run better than they usually do.
I’ve definitely enjoyed some of the Olympics. I’ve watched more of the diving than I ever have before, for instance, and probably more of the gymnastics too – and the running – and the broad jumping.
Are we supposed to declare loyalty to it or something? Most of us are thousands of miles from London, you know.
carliesays
I’m really getting the vibe that no-one on FTB has enjoyed the Olympics at all. I’ve personally had a fantastic Olympic experience, and think the BBC’s coverage has been wonderful.
A lot of us have been stuck with NBC’s coverage, which sucks rocks. See twitter’s #nbcfail hashtag, and officials even told NBC commentators to shut up or GTFO.
God, the talking – I have to watch with my thumb on the mute button. They talk while divers are diving. flrglbgrgl
Jamessays
While noting Kathy’s comments, I do wonder if dear old Aunty Beeb have got a similar piece coming up examining the dominance of white athletes in certain of the other sports – rowing/sculling, cycling, sailing, dressage and other equestrian events are a few that come to mind. I bet they could come up with equally facetious “just-so” stories to explain white dominance in those sports.
Seriously, nobody would even think of asking the question in those cases because you don’t question normality, and white is normal right?
[bleugh!]
Anyway even if we ignore all the possible socio-economic and cultural factors for a moment, I thought it had been established that there was a hugely greater (like orders of magnitude or something) genetic variation among black Africans than between all the Indo & Eurasian peoples combined. This makes sense if the migration out of Africa happened in relatively few small groups in a relatively recent (evolutionarily speaking) time frame. And with bell curves being what they are and everything wouldn’t we kind of expect athletic (and all other kinds of) outliers to be more common in a population with greater genetic diversity?
Only by that logic we’d have to ask why all the other strength/speed/endurance events aren’t dominated by those of (recent) African descent. And then we’d have to ask about the events involving hand-eye co-ordination and other skills with a genetic component. Which might prompt us to think about why so few Nobel prize winners, CEOs and other “intellectual” elites are black.
Probably best just to concentrate on the sprinting…oh and I hear they can dance pretty good too, natural rhythm I’m told.
unitysays
While noting Kathy’s comments, I do wonder if dear old Aunty Beeb have got a similar piece coming up examining the dominance of white athletes in certain of the other sports – rowing/sculling, cycling, sailing, dressage and other equestrian events are a few that come to mind. I bet they could come up with equally facetious “just-so” stories to explain white dominance in those sports.
Seriously, nobody would even think of asking the question in those cases because you don’t question normality, and white is normal right?
No – I’m pretty sure thst the Beeb won’t be doing a piece on white dominance of rowing precisely because no one really has any odd misconceptions about racial genetics and that particular sport – although there was something of a debate last week around issues of class and the role of private educaton after a sizeable number of our early gold medallists turned out to have privately educated.
In general, you don’t need to explain to people that their beliefs may well wrong or grossly oversimplistics if they don’t hold those beliefs in the first place, wheras the idea that athletes of West African decent may have some sort of genetic advantage in certain events is sufficiently commonplace to merit a bit of attention and a well-intentioned attempt to explain why it really not that simple, of which the video is only one element.
As on many other occasions, the use of whataboutery in lieu of an actual argument really doesn’t add anything to the debate.
Arthursays
The YouTube clip of the BBC piece is taken out of context. After the piece there is a discussion with former US sprinter Michael Johnson (with Brits Colin Jackson and Denise Lewis of Caribbean heritage). Johnson and Jackson have both made films on this subject.
The discussion comes after Michael Johnson’s recent film “Survival Of The Fastest” where he explores his own African American heritage and the relationship with genetics and sprinting. He speaks with scientists, African American scholars and so on.
The BBC clip was also just one of a number of pieces about African American and Black Caribbean track and field history. It was preceded by a film about Tommie Smith’s black glove protest, and was part of a series that included Denise Lewis discussing her Jamaican heritage.
As someone of Black Caribbean origin, I found Johnson’s film, the BBC discussion, and each of these films very interesting. I don’t believe Michael Johnson or any other activist, athlete or scholar involved with the films were encouraging “racist apologetics”, as was asserted by PZ.
It’s true that the video was presented in a segment that gave a more informed overall view. But I’m not sure how relevant that is: the BBC commissioned that video. They decided that it was good enough to show to a huge audience. And yet it’s an astonishingly terrible piece of work, regardless of whether it’s racist. I still criticise the BBC for making such a painfully idiotic video, even if the intention was to raise controversy, which I’m not 100% certain of.
When I saw it live, within the context of the whole segment, I didn’t get the impression that the BBC was trying to show both sides of a controversial argument. I got the impression that they were playing the video because someone there thought it made a good point. It happened that the co-presenters were reasonably well-informed and pointed out a few of the problems with the video. But it could easily have gone the other way. That’s just my impression, of course, I have no idea of the BBC’s motives. They certainly had at least one co-presenter (Johnson) who has been involved with a show about this issue (I don’t know about Jackson), but he’s been a regular presenter, he wasn’t just there to be interviewed about this particular video.
So I’m not convinced that they were trying to raise a controversial point, but even if they were – even if the BBC were indulging their obsession with showing both sides – why didn’t they put both sides in the video? After all, the video can be shown in other contexts. It’s out in the wild right now, without the context of the studio discussion. I don’t think people watching it can reasonably be blamed for not knowing about the discussion afterwards, although there are quite a lot of people around the web who are getting very angry indeed that they don’t.
The video stands by itself as an uninformed, anti-scientific bit of appalling crap and it’s embarrassing that the BBC made it, regardless of the discussion that occurred on that one occasion.
Besides, I’m not sure anyone is trying to accuse the BBC of any kind of institutional racism. The mentions I’ve seen (most notably Ophelia and PZ) have criticised the video rather than the BBC.
Kathysays
Of course both PZ and Ophelia are criticising the BBC for showing this video! That’s what their posts are about.
As for why produce the video, seriously, have you guys not watched any other coverage? It’s one of very many ‘filler’ videos that the BBC have produced as part of their coverage, that get followed up by comment in the studio. The point being that you can present whatever the subject of the video is in a dynamic way instead of the filler sections just being endless studio pundits talking (which also allows the studio people the occasional break) and you can cut the studio discussion short if you need to when something exciting is happening elsewhere.
Ophelia, I read these posts last night after watching Marvelous Mo Farah get his history-making double. You totally harshed my squee, which is where the severe annoyance evident in my post comes in. But I don’t think I have seen a positive London-Olympics post on here. Everywhere else I hang out in real life and online there’s a bit of a party atmosphere, so it’s really to come here and find everyone on such a downer. But I guess that’s the result of recent TF00t related events.
Of course both PZ and Ophelia are criticising the BBC for showing this video! That’s what their posts are about.
Yes, they are criticising the stupidity of the video and the judgement of the BBC in producing. They’re saying hey look, the BBC did a stupid thing. Some people have got themselves really worked up about this as though PZ and Ophelia are accusing the BBC of being institutionally racist by pointing out the bad video. They are not criticising the BBC as a whole, just the video, which is the point I was trying to make.
it’s really to come here and find everyone on such a downer.
Kathy, I take it you’re in the UK? Does it occur to you that maybe the party atmosphere you’ve been around has to do with geography? I’m not in the UK.
I did massive partying a week ago, around the Mars landing. I have also been enjoying the athletic prowess, but I don’t have much to say about it.
I did watch Mo Farah win last night, even though I already knew the outcome. Will that do? (I also saw the last few minutes of the Sounders’ loss to San Jose.)
S Mukherjeesays
Kathy, I don’t understand what your problem is. Are you seriously whingeing that we meanies are not acting as ‘squee’-ful about the Olympics as you would like us to do?! BTW, right on the BBC, in between sports news, there was coverage about Tia Sharp’s murder and the suspect whom they’ve arrested. Maybe you should write to the BBC and complain about how they harshed your squee.
How old are you?!
rredesays
Chiming in as confused at the “ur harshing my squee” which seems….completely inappropriate discourse in many ways.
Unless somebody is forcing Kathy to read this blog in which case, they would be harshing her squee?
There are often posts on a blog that I don’t want to read for various reasons–I just skim over, backbutton, whatever, don’t read–I don’t go “omg you’re bumming me out people” (sorry, wrong generation here for “harshing my squee,” and the times I’ve seen it used in fandom has been mostly to shut down discussions of issues of racism, sexism, homphobia, etc. in a popular show or film, so I have a nasty knee-jerk reaction to anybody who says that particular phrase).
Internet. Big, huge, amazing, filled with many many things I don’t want to read or view–so I don’t.
I’ve been skipping most of the Olympic coverage because sports bores me to tears–all sports, though in the intellectual abstract way I’m cheering on women because YAY I can remember pre-Title IX days, hah–but I also don’t go complain at people writing about sports when I might prefer more about some other topic…..because, their blog!
No, no, that’s the wrong attitude, I’m supposed to intuit what everyone who will stop by here to read something wants to read and then write only that. Otherwise I’m being a big god damn #FTBullies.
When are we going to start calling this Squeegate?
You do not have the right to not have your squee harshed…
dirigiblesays
I don’t feel I’m being unpatriotic in my failure to squee at the games.
This certainly has something to do with trains running on time, but not in the way that Kathy has in mind.
Kathysays
Hello all.
Apologies. I was merely explaining my tetchyness. I’ve been on an Olympics high and so being brought down to earth with a bump is rather jarring. That’s all – an entirely emotional response.
Yes, I’m in the UK – I live reasonably near the Mountain Biking venue, I go past the Olympic park on the train to work each day and have watched the stadium and aquatics centre being built over the years. I’ve been in the thick of it, for a lot more than two weeks – since the bid was won, through the horror of the 7/7 attacks the very next day, through all the wrangling and complaining and bungles in the run-up to it. I was fortunate enough to get tickets to a few events (the cheap seats right up the back, I hasten to add).
Having the games come off so well in the end feels like a triumph in itself, one worth celebrating. There are plenty of other things to celebrate, of cours – the Curiosity landing was incredible – but I haven’t been right in the thick of them!
Davesays
It was an odd little piece, however it spends far more time discussing the evils of ‘scientific racism/social Darwinism’ than it does speculating about the selection effects of slave ancestry. If you take the whole thing, it is quite skeptical of any meaningful link, barring an odd five seconds when there is an anatomy drawing onscreen and the voiceover is repeatedly saying ‘fittest’.
I think it was a fair try by the BBC to discuss something that is an issue in the popular culture, put some historical background to it, and highlight some of the complexities. I think it failed to hit its mark, esp. because the presenter in the discussion afterwards was either poorly-briefed or just a bit dumb.
Trackbacks
[…] of forgetting that not everyone reading would know what prompted this post. What prompted it was this comment on my post about a dopy BBC film clip about natural selection and slavery and fast […]
[…] Comics Alliance – Olympians: Superhero Bodies and What Real Athletes Look Like (Bilder von olympischen AthletInnen als Zeichen dafür, wie einseitig die Figuren in Comics gezeichnet werden) […]
*sigh*
I’ve just read through all the responses to this video on Pharyngula pointing out that the video is taken out of context, that it was designed to raise the controversial argument so it can be dissected by Michael Johnson, Colin Jackson (who have both been involved before in TV programmes that examined the effect of genes and environment on sprinting success, and have good grasps of the scientific arguments) and Denise Lewis in a studio discussion afterwards.
The Beeb has many flaws. Among the most serious is the desire for ‘balance’ that leads them to give more weight than is warranted to certain unscientific arguments and positions – the ‘both sides of the story’ fallacy. To quote only one side of the argument actually presented in order to accuse the BBC of racism or race apologetics is a gross misrepresentation of the actual problem, however.
I’m really getting the vibe that no-one on FTB has enjoyed the Olympics at all. I’ve personally had a fantastic Olympic experience, and think the BBC’s coverage has been wonderful. Our athletes have been terrific. Both organizational and sporting success has been beyond all expectations, and I haven’t even been late to work – if anything my trains have run better than they usually do.
Eh? The vibe? What does that mean?
I’ve definitely enjoyed some of the Olympics. I’ve watched more of the diving than I ever have before, for instance, and probably more of the gymnastics too – and the running – and the broad jumping.
Are we supposed to declare loyalty to it or something? Most of us are thousands of miles from London, you know.
A lot of us have been stuck with NBC’s coverage, which sucks rocks. See twitter’s #nbcfail hashtag, and officials even told NBC commentators to shut up or GTFO.
God, the talking – I have to watch with my thumb on the mute button. They talk while divers are diving. flrglbgrgl
While noting Kathy’s comments, I do wonder if dear old Aunty Beeb have got a similar piece coming up examining the dominance of white athletes in certain of the other sports – rowing/sculling, cycling, sailing, dressage and other equestrian events are a few that come to mind. I bet they could come up with equally facetious “just-so” stories to explain white dominance in those sports.
Seriously, nobody would even think of asking the question in those cases because you don’t question normality, and white is normal right?
[bleugh!]
Anyway even if we ignore all the possible socio-economic and cultural factors for a moment, I thought it had been established that there was a hugely greater (like orders of magnitude or something) genetic variation among black Africans than between all the Indo & Eurasian peoples combined. This makes sense if the migration out of Africa happened in relatively few small groups in a relatively recent (evolutionarily speaking) time frame. And with bell curves being what they are and everything wouldn’t we kind of expect athletic (and all other kinds of) outliers to be more common in a population with greater genetic diversity?
Only by that logic we’d have to ask why all the other strength/speed/endurance events aren’t dominated by those of (recent) African descent. And then we’d have to ask about the events involving hand-eye co-ordination and other skills with a genetic component. Which might prompt us to think about why so few Nobel prize winners, CEOs and other “intellectual” elites are black.
Probably best just to concentrate on the sprinting…oh and I hear they can dance pretty good too, natural rhythm I’m told.
While noting Kathy’s comments, I do wonder if dear old Aunty Beeb have got a similar piece coming up examining the dominance of white athletes in certain of the other sports – rowing/sculling, cycling, sailing, dressage and other equestrian events are a few that come to mind. I bet they could come up with equally facetious “just-so” stories to explain white dominance in those sports.
Seriously, nobody would even think of asking the question in those cases because you don’t question normality, and white is normal right?
No – I’m pretty sure thst the Beeb won’t be doing a piece on white dominance of rowing precisely because no one really has any odd misconceptions about racial genetics and that particular sport – although there was something of a debate last week around issues of class and the role of private educaton after a sizeable number of our early gold medallists turned out to have privately educated.
In general, you don’t need to explain to people that their beliefs may well wrong or grossly oversimplistics if they don’t hold those beliefs in the first place, wheras the idea that athletes of West African decent may have some sort of genetic advantage in certain events is sufficiently commonplace to merit a bit of attention and a well-intentioned attempt to explain why it really not that simple, of which the video is only one element.
As on many other occasions, the use of whataboutery in lieu of an actual argument really doesn’t add anything to the debate.
The YouTube clip of the BBC piece is taken out of context. After the piece there is a discussion with former US sprinter Michael Johnson (with Brits Colin Jackson and Denise Lewis of Caribbean heritage). Johnson and Jackson have both made films on this subject.
The discussion comes after Michael Johnson’s recent film “Survival Of The Fastest” where he explores his own African American heritage and the relationship with genetics and sprinting. He speaks with scientists, African American scholars and so on.
The BBC clip was also just one of a number of pieces about African American and Black Caribbean track and field history. It was preceded by a film about Tommie Smith’s black glove protest, and was part of a series that included Denise Lewis discussing her Jamaican heritage.
As someone of Black Caribbean origin, I found Johnson’s film, the BBC discussion, and each of these films very interesting. I don’t believe Michael Johnson or any other activist, athlete or scholar involved with the films were encouraging “racist apologetics”, as was asserted by PZ.
Michael Johnson’s film: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/michael-johnson-survival-of-the-fastest
It’s true that the video was presented in a segment that gave a more informed overall view. But I’m not sure how relevant that is: the BBC commissioned that video. They decided that it was good enough to show to a huge audience. And yet it’s an astonishingly terrible piece of work, regardless of whether it’s racist. I still criticise the BBC for making such a painfully idiotic video, even if the intention was to raise controversy, which I’m not 100% certain of.
When I saw it live, within the context of the whole segment, I didn’t get the impression that the BBC was trying to show both sides of a controversial argument. I got the impression that they were playing the video because someone there thought it made a good point. It happened that the co-presenters were reasonably well-informed and pointed out a few of the problems with the video. But it could easily have gone the other way. That’s just my impression, of course, I have no idea of the BBC’s motives. They certainly had at least one co-presenter (Johnson) who has been involved with a show about this issue (I don’t know about Jackson), but he’s been a regular presenter, he wasn’t just there to be interviewed about this particular video.
So I’m not convinced that they were trying to raise a controversial point, but even if they were – even if the BBC were indulging their obsession with showing both sides – why didn’t they put both sides in the video? After all, the video can be shown in other contexts. It’s out in the wild right now, without the context of the studio discussion. I don’t think people watching it can reasonably be blamed for not knowing about the discussion afterwards, although there are quite a lot of people around the web who are getting very angry indeed that they don’t.
The video stands by itself as an uninformed, anti-scientific bit of appalling crap and it’s embarrassing that the BBC made it, regardless of the discussion that occurred on that one occasion.
Besides, I’m not sure anyone is trying to accuse the BBC of any kind of institutional racism. The mentions I’ve seen (most notably Ophelia and PZ) have criticised the video rather than the BBC.
Of course both PZ and Ophelia are criticising the BBC for showing this video! That’s what their posts are about.
As for why produce the video, seriously, have you guys not watched any other coverage? It’s one of very many ‘filler’ videos that the BBC have produced as part of their coverage, that get followed up by comment in the studio. The point being that you can present whatever the subject of the video is in a dynamic way instead of the filler sections just being endless studio pundits talking (which also allows the studio people the occasional break) and you can cut the studio discussion short if you need to when something exciting is happening elsewhere.
Ophelia, I read these posts last night after watching Marvelous Mo Farah get his history-making double. You totally harshed my squee, which is where the severe annoyance evident in my post comes in. But I don’t think I have seen a positive London-Olympics post on here. Everywhere else I hang out in real life and online there’s a bit of a party atmosphere, so it’s really to come here and find everyone on such a downer. But I guess that’s the result of recent TF00t related events.
Yes, they are criticising the stupidity of the video and the judgement of the BBC in producing. They’re saying hey look, the BBC did a stupid thing. Some people have got themselves really worked up about this as though PZ and Ophelia are accusing the BBC of being institutionally racist by pointing out the bad video. They are not criticising the BBC as a whole, just the video, which is the point I was trying to make.
I hope you’re not telling Ophelia to smile….. 😉
Jeezis – I’m getting party-patrolled now?
Kathy, I take it you’re in the UK? Does it occur to you that maybe the party atmosphere you’ve been around has to do with geography? I’m not in the UK.
I did massive partying a week ago, around the Mars landing. I have also been enjoying the athletic prowess, but I don’t have much to say about it.
I did watch Mo Farah win last night, even though I already knew the outcome. Will that do? (I also saw the last few minutes of the Sounders’ loss to San Jose.)
Kathy, I don’t understand what your problem is. Are you seriously whingeing that we meanies are not acting as ‘squee’-ful about the Olympics as you would like us to do?! BTW, right on the BBC, in between sports news, there was coverage about Tia Sharp’s murder and the suspect whom they’ve arrested. Maybe you should write to the BBC and complain about how they harshed your squee.
How old are you?!
Chiming in as confused at the “ur harshing my squee” which seems….completely inappropriate discourse in many ways.
Unless somebody is forcing Kathy to read this blog in which case, they would be harshing her squee?
There are often posts on a blog that I don’t want to read for various reasons–I just skim over, backbutton, whatever, don’t read–I don’t go “omg you’re bumming me out people” (sorry, wrong generation here for “harshing my squee,” and the times I’ve seen it used in fandom has been mostly to shut down discussions of issues of racism, sexism, homphobia, etc. in a popular show or film, so I have a nasty knee-jerk reaction to anybody who says that particular phrase).
Internet. Big, huge, amazing, filled with many many things I don’t want to read or view–so I don’t.
I’ve been skipping most of the Olympic coverage because sports bores me to tears–all sports, though in the intellectual abstract way I’m cheering on women because YAY I can remember pre-Title IX days, hah–but I also don’t go complain at people writing about sports when I might prefer more about some other topic…..because, their blog!
No, no, that’s the wrong attitude, I’m supposed to intuit what everyone who will stop by here to read something wants to read and then write only that. Otherwise I’m being a big god damn #FTBullies.
😀
When are we going to start calling this Squeegate?
You do not have the right to not have your squee harshed…
I don’t feel I’m being unpatriotic in my failure to squee at the games.
This certainly has something to do with trains running on time, but not in the way that Kathy has in mind.
Hello all.
Apologies. I was merely explaining my tetchyness. I’ve been on an Olympics high and so being brought down to earth with a bump is rather jarring. That’s all – an entirely emotional response.
Yes, I’m in the UK – I live reasonably near the Mountain Biking venue, I go past the Olympic park on the train to work each day and have watched the stadium and aquatics centre being built over the years. I’ve been in the thick of it, for a lot more than two weeks – since the bid was won, through the horror of the 7/7 attacks the very next day, through all the wrangling and complaining and bungles in the run-up to it. I was fortunate enough to get tickets to a few events (the cheap seats right up the back, I hasten to add).
Having the games come off so well in the end feels like a triumph in itself, one worth celebrating. There are plenty of other things to celebrate, of cours – the Curiosity landing was incredible – but I haven’t been right in the thick of them!
It was an odd little piece, however it spends far more time discussing the evils of ‘scientific racism/social Darwinism’ than it does speculating about the selection effects of slave ancestry. If you take the whole thing, it is quite skeptical of any meaningful link, barring an odd five seconds when there is an anatomy drawing onscreen and the voiceover is repeatedly saying ‘fittest’.
I think it was a fair try by the BBC to discuss something that is an issue in the popular culture, put some historical background to it, and highlight some of the complexities. I think it failed to hit its mark, esp. because the presenter in the discussion afterwards was either poorly-briefed or just a bit dumb.