Every now and then the cool squish of mouse innards under a naked foot as one steps out of the bedroom door reminds the cat owner that the animal he or she thinks of as “dear little Tibbles” thinks of itself as Devourer of Prey And Spitter-Out of Their Discarded Internal Organs.
Thus I mused while trying not to put my foot on the carpet. I mused also on the fact (brought to my attention by commenter Alan) that the BBC’s Justin Webb is to host a series of programmes on Anti-Americanism. Mr Webb writes:
It is time that we understood that this attitude, this contempt for what democracy can do, is at the heart of at least some of the anti-Americanism we see in the world today.
My impression, looking over the numerous references to Mr Webb on this blog, is that having experienced the Mouse Intestine of Nasty Consequences resulting from the actions of the Tibbles of the Politically Correct Worldview he has now begun the long slow hop to the Bathroom of Reality. A good thing, and – seriously – good for him, but since change is always painful, expect it to be three hops forward, two hops back.
I should still like John Reith to comment on the toe-curling arrogance of Webb’s attitude to Republican, church-going Americans (even ones who invite him to dinner)revealed in this little gem.
“We are having dinner at the house of some friends who are supporters of President Bush.
Their five-year-old son, a classmate of our children, takes me upstairs to see his collection of dinosaurs.
Little Meade is a passionate palaeontologist and this is a land of plenty so the room heaves with prehistoric life.
I am suitably impressed, but unknown to Meade I am not here to admire the bone structure of the dinosaurs.
I am in this room on assignment, because in modern America Meade’s dinosaurs are at the heart of the travails of a political party and I need to find out something about Meade’s parents which will affect our relationship.
I need to know what they told him about when the dinosaurs existed.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4469590.stm
Read it all. It doesn’t get better.
I brought this splendid example of Webb’s arrogance to Reith’s attention during a lively exchange on the routine ridicule of President Bush on BBC News and other programming.
Oddly enough he chose not to respond.
More evasion anyone?
Hat tip: The American Now-Sadly-Repatriated
http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/11/webbs-own-little-fantasy-world.html
“Fran | 16.04.07 – 6:47 am ”
incredible. looks like Webb doesnt understand what religious freedom is all about.
Fran,
I brought this splendid example of Webb’s arrogance to Reith’s attention during a lively exchange on the routine ridicule of President Bush on BBC News and other programming.
Oddly enough he chose not to respond.
More evasion anyone?
Reith has a real talent for dropping out of a debate at the precise moment that he’s about to lose it.
If any of us had Reith face to face in a formal debate he’d be laughed out of the debating hall.
Natalie,
Way OT, but could anyone enlighten me as to what has happened to the Monthly Archives? How does one link to past threads on this worthy site?
“looks like Webb doesnt understand what religious freedom is all about.”
Where’s he said that people shouldn’t have these views? He’s making the very good point that a ridiculous fringe of religious thought is in danger of unduly influencing the governing political party of a major developed nation (and it’s to Bush’s immense credit that he’s largely resisted). Not unlike the PC inspired pandering to Islam within Labour which is rightly condemned amongst B-BBCers.
Webb is actually pretty decent – he’s broadly stood up for the US as a success story and a broadly positive influence on world events whilst being unafraid to tackle the wierd/contradictory/downright scary aspects. If only the Beeb’s European/Middle Eastern/etc etc correspondents would show the same cojones…
Evangelical Christians in America? No? Really?
Wow! That is news!
/sarcasm
Yes, religion pretending to be science is worrying. It is gathering momentum here in the UK too, and needs to be slapped down.
However, having a confused view of cosmology is unlikely to cause you to start crashing aeroplanes into buildings. At least that’s my guess.
Al-Beeb: How about a follow-up report on a different religion? A really nasty, violent, sexist, racist, pervasive religion? One that is in many countries enforced by the state? Where alternative religious viewpoints are not simply regarded as ‘different’, but are outlawed? A religious cult that you can only leave on pain of death?
And women are second class citizens.
And you have to wear funny clothes.
And revere a big black rock.
And the Jews are always the bad guys.
Which reminds me, a bacon butty before church is definately out.
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot.
America is the great Satan.
Dying for this religion is considered ‘a good thing’.
Dying for this religion whilst taking out a bunch of other people with you, preferably using explosives, is considered ‘martyredom’.
Your reward for this is a bunch of inexperienced, cloud-dwelling, sex-slaves.
Women who are raped can be executed, particularly if it offends your ‘honour’. Don’t worry too much about her – she’s only been raped.
Actually, this list could get seriously long…
Webb’s mother was an anti-war protester. The Guardian and New Staesman would have been in the house. Thatcher and Reagan would have been hated. The Falklands would have been seen as a colonialist venture. His route to the BBC newsroom was set out before he was born.
The question is, why is this type of background so prevalent in the BBC? Given the circulation of said publications, the BBC seems to recruit from a small minority of the population.
Perhaps Justin Webb would care to have a chat with his BBC colleague Fi Glover. On her “Saturday live” programme this weekend (available on “listen again”) they were enjoying themselves greatly with lots of none too subtle anti-American jibes. An American resident in this country e-mailed the programme to express how distasteful she found the constant drip drip of anti-American bigotry now so prevalent in this country, and on the BBC. Ms Glover and her guests, including Sandi Toksvig saw this was even funnier; “well what is forcing her to stay here?” they wondered aloud as they giggled.
I wonder there would be there suggested solution to an Asian or Afro-Caribbean who complained of racist insults? In fact there are the two cases were the police have been involved when any of the minorities have been told to to “go home if they don’t like it” — celebrity Big Brother being one of them.
oops, bad typos there – soz.
Fran | 16.04.07 – 6:47 am
Sorry not to address this last time, it fell through the gaps of a rather more wide ranging discussion.
Frankly, I can’t fathom why you are so critical of Webb on this one.
The creationist/Darwinist/ID debate in the US is a fairly prominent one • and impacts from time to time on party politics.
According to a September 2005 Gallup Poll, 53% of Americans agreed with the statement:
God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
– a majority rejection of Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
When the poll was repeated in May 2006, the figure had dropped to 46%. The switchers, though, had not been persuaded by orthodox Darwiniwm, but rather had moved to an ‘evolution with God guiding’ option along ID lines.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12127
By any standard, these are big figures and bound to find expression in politics.
Though their influence has waned in recent years, creationists like Gerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have had influence within the Republican party. Young Earth Creationists have sought to influence politics in many ways. Even John McCain has had to court crtics of evolution • making a keynote speech at an ID-related think-tank.
Even if you’re relaxed about ID • as I am • and its political cheerleaders like Republicans Rick Santorum and Dick De Vos, you surely sit up and take notice when someone like Republican State Senator Harold Hochstatter of Washington state introduces a measure into the legislature along these lines:
the teaching of the theory of evolution in the common schools of the state of Washington is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thereby unconstitutional and unlawful…..
All textbooks and curriculum that teach the theory of evolution shall be removed from the public schools forthwith and replaced with textbooks and curriculum that teach the self-evident truth of creation.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8570.htm
Personally, I have found that the US is the only place outside the Islamic world where one can have a discussion with someone with a masters degree in science/medicine and be uncertain whether they accept that evolution by natural selection is broadly true.
I’ve had one otherwise extremely sophisticated and undoubtedly intelligent person of the Young Earth persuasion tell me, when confronted with the problem of fossils, that they were planted on the Earth either by God • as a test of belief • or by the Devil as a trap. Either way they were bogus.
All this is odd. Justin Webb’s curiosity is perfectly understandable, I think.
for the record, the teaching of evolution is explicitly banned outright in Saudi Arabia. (along with classical music)
how come we never hear about that?
John Reith
“Frankly, I can’t fathom why you are so critical of Webb on this one.”
Let me try to put it more clearly.
Webb abuses the hospitality of his hosts by using their child to satisfy his curiosity about their stance on creationism. For he explains that the wrong answer on the part of the child would alter the way he thinks about the parents.
Then he compounds his boorishness by writing a dispatch on the subject for all – presumably his hosts included – to see.
The organisation for which he works sees nothing wrong with his using this social occasion to sneer at people with whose beliefs he does not happen to agree.
I’m a traditionalist. I value hospitality, good manners and loyalty between friends, even when I do not agree with all their views. If their views are violent or offensive, they will cease to be my friends.
Webb’s contempt for American Republicans, for Creationists dehumanises them so much in his view that he is prepared to spit in the face of these values.
Shame on Webb, and shame on you for not recognising the glaring impropriety of his behaviour.
I don’t accept “evolution by natural selection is broadly true” either… I’ll get my coat.
(Though I think even Richard Dawkins believes some additional mechanisms are required…)
there is something disconcerting about Webb’s zealotry.
“The dinosaurs, he informs me with great authority and aplomb, are millions and millions and millions of years old. I could have hugged him and his parents; we are, after all, inhabiting the same mental planet”
science is about rationality and reason. its not about emotions.
i find his stance disconcerting, because i wouldnt have a problem with being friends with an evangelical in the U.S. – in fact,i’d probably find that person interesting to talk to, as they would come from a different “mental planet” to myself.
life would get a bit boring if you only had friends that thought the same way as you did.
Okay, now THAT is a metaphor worthy of a Wall Street Journal alert! Don’t make me laugh when I’m supposed to be working! 😀
Appropos of Mr. Reith’s comments: I am continually amazed by the degree to which Liberals feel threatened by the mere existence of Evangelical Christians – far more so than I, a Jew, do!
Personally I think holding non-scientific opinions about creation causes considerably less harm to society then clinging to exploded economic theories like Socialims.
damn good point roxana.
“global warming” hysteria versus the climate scientists is another example.
by contrast, evangelical christians arent hounding biologists out of their jobs.
and speaking as someone who buys into the evolutionary theory of life, i can truely say that NOTHING in science is 100 per cent guaranteed. that sort of “100 per ness” should be left to faith and religion. unfortunately, the Beeboids and their fellow hangers on seem to have forgotten about that important aspect of science.
(which is why i love science – nothing is ever 100 per cent guaranteed. its always changing…)
John Reith said:
“All this is odd. Justin Webb’s curiosity is perfectly understandable, I think.”
Curiosity? The only thing Webb seemd curious about in this “report” was whether or not his hosts’ offspring had been brainwashed into believing fairy stories. No curiosity about the the larger points of religious beliefs seems to exist. Only “Evangelicals = Primitive Cavemen” seems to be on offer here.
Having said that, you (Mr. Reith) are correct in pointing out that a significant amount of Americans do seem to hold some semi-Creationist beliefs. That’s what rigged polls and the organzations which trumpet them want us to think, anyway. In actual fact, the number of people who really do hold the most fundamentalist beliefs just do not make up anything like a significant voting block save for in a few counties spread thinly across the landscape. Naturally, that bit of reality does not fit the agenda, so we are as always told that a majority of Americans are dumbasses who cling to a pre-Galileo worldview. Still, trying to discover a concrete effect of those beliefs on voting patterns could certainly have been an interesting story. However, there is no discussion of how these beliefs manifest themselves in people’s actual behavior. Typically in all reports like this, there is never discussion as to whether other, non-Biblical issues might be more important to them come election day. On the contrary, anyone with even a hint of these beliefs are open to publicly broadcasted ridicule and demonization, full stop. Only if they are Christian, of course. British as well as American Christians are often on the receiving end of this behavior as well. I still remember when PM Tony Blair was asked during a BBC interview if, when he met with President Bush, he “prayed with him”. The snigger from the presenter was quite audible.
Do we need to hold our breaths until similar attitudes towards Muslims are regularly presented? When the BBC do a programme on the equivalencies in the beliefs of Muslims registered to vote in the UK, then we’ll try to view all this in a different light.
So, looking at last Thursday’s article from Webb about Anti-Americansim, it seems that Webb is prepared to be more open-minded, looking deeper into his subject. This is a good thing. I just hope that, once he’s done rounding up the usual suspects for questioning, his editor asks him to look at the phenomenon as practiced by the BBC. Well, adding that link to the “Anti-Americansim feels like racism” post is a good start.
I find it disturbing that Mr Reith is unaware of the results of a poll, carried out on behalf of his own organisation, which indicates the following:
“Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.
The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC’s Horizon series.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
It is also worrying that the BBC, in its enthusiasm to portray the US as a hotbed of religious nutjobbery, fails to highlight the (completely Constitutional, and almost entirely undiscussed, unopposed, and certainly unreported, by the BBC, anyway) teaching of ID as science in the Vardy Academies – state schools, right here in right on, secular Blighty.
As with so very many things, the BBC spends so long pointing fingers and sneering at those crazy Americans that it ends exposing its lardy white arse as it gets caught with its pants down.
“Sarah | 16.04.07 – 9:31 pm ”
america has very strict separation of church and state in the public (taxpayer funded) schooling system.
this goes back to their constitution – and the idea that church/state separation actually guarantees religious freedom for everyone.
meanwhile, mini-archduke attends a taxpayer funded school nearby where there are morning Christian prayers.
nobody asked Archduke if he was a christian or not.
i think i know which system i prefer.
next time the bbc sneers at american religiosity, i have two words for them
northern ireland
hello state sanctioned sectarian educaton system…
sarah -> on the poll. what do you expect after years of BBC dumbing down of science coverage. not to mention the dumbing down of science education in general.
at the very least, the Americans still have NASA. meanwhile we’ve got oddball scientists trying to scrabble together a few crumbs for Beagle probes to Mars.
Personally, I prefer a strict separation of Church and State, archduke, but if that is not the law of the land, then so be it.
I despise the BBC’s hypocrisy on the issue, though. It is part of its “freak show USA” coverage to major heavily on the ID in US schools issue (now, largely a non-issue, as ruled un-constitutional), but completely fails to report on the situation in the UK. Most British people that I know don’t even realise that ID is taught as science in some British state schools, and think that I am joking until I show them.
Isn’t part of the BBC’s remit “to inform”?
The only regular reports on this issue come, in fact, from the Guardian’s Education Supplement.
**sarah -> on the poll. what do you expect after years of BBC dumbing down of science coverage. not to mention the dumbing down of science education in general.**
I was surprised by the poll results, especially the high number of those who want ID taught as science. We’re always told how much more sophisticated the secular British are ;).
**at the very least, the Americans still have NASA. meanwhile we’ve got oddball scientists trying to scrabble together a few crumbs for Beagle probes to Mars.**
Lol. The Beagle was in a fine tradition of British eccentric invention – which has often, in the past, come good.
archduke | 16.04.07 – 11:23 pm | #
This guy Webb thinks anti-Americanism began with the French. He spent about half the programme last night discussing this with some left-wing “intellectuals” and also pro-forma mentioned Jean Paul Satre as some sort of seed to this kind of thinking. Webb, in common with so many confused British “subjects” also does not seem to understand the concept of separation of religion and state — i.e. religion is against the law if it is public or seeks state support, but individuals are perfectly free to do what they want privately. He doesn’t have to go as far as the US for an example. A jump across the water to Republican France where his lefty intellectuals hold sway, should convince him. He forgets that the American Revolution was funded and supported by France to the extent that it virtually bankrupted the country and led to the French Revolution! Vive la Republique!
Fran | 16.04.07 – 5:04 pm
Justin Webb is one of the most scrupulously well-mannered people I know.
I very much doubt whether he would write about a friend’s child – and indeed name him – without the knowledge and consent of the parents or would ‘violate hospitality’ in any way.
I think you may be jumping to some quite unwarranted conclusions.
Justin Webb is one of the most scrupulously well-mannered people I know.
Except, evidently, when dealing with Americans.
I have a small observation for all those who think that the modern United States of America wants to be a global Empire.
Last time I looked, Canada and Mexico were both independent countries.
jr “I very much doubt whether he would write about a friend’s child – and indeed name him – without the knowledge and consent of the parents”
There is of course the possibility that the family were imaginary, but illustrated the story in a Piers Morgan sort of way.
John Reith | 16.04.07 – 3:33 pm |
Personally, I have found that the US is the only place outside the Islamic world where one can have a discussion with someone with a masters degree in science/medicine and be uncertain whether they accept that evolution by natural selection is broadly true.
Then you are obviously not very well travelled. Such people exist everywhere and add to a wonderful diversity of opinion that the BBC is so determined to crush.
Justin Webb may very well be well-mannered and considerate, but would he have done the same thing to a Muslim family? In any event, presumably the family was not too offended by the article since they were deemed to be sane. One wonders what the outcome would have been if the boy had spouted something about fossils being the Devil’s attempt at deception.
It is also probably worth wondering if a similar report might be done about, say, a Muslim family living in Britain. Let’s even go so far as to pretend that they’re second-generation citizens, meaning that the parents in question are UK-born Muslims, and junior is quizzed about dinosaurs.
On second thought, this scenario would never, ever happen, would it? Any Muslim family that adheres to Muslim beliefs strictly enough that they could possibly question Evolution would never in a million years let a BBC reporter in their homes like that. Not to mention the fact that a programme would never, ever be done that might possibly poke fun at Muslims in the UK, even in such a light-hearted way.
Surely, though, the influence of Muslim religious practices on UK citizens registered to vote would be much more interesting to license-fee slaves than the behavior of individual American citizens. After all, UK-born Muslims – the progeny of seemingly upstanding, naturalized British citizens – murdered quite a few British citizens in cold blood on their way to work not so long ago.
Sadly, one no longer wonders why BBC employees see Christian Americans as more of a real danger to the physical safety and well-being of the British public. It is this sort of tinted glass though which many of us view Webb’s effort to do a series on Anti-Americanism.
John Reith
“Justin Webb is one of the most scrupulously well-mannered people I know.”
This article does not display good manners as I understand them.
I wonder whether Webb would write such an article about a visit to the house of a devout Muslim friend who believes that Allah created Adam out of a clot of blood, and the universe ex nihilo.
I wonder when we shall read about his astonishment that significant numbers of people in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Indonesia accept literally the Qur’an’s description of the creation of the first man, from whom all others spring?
when do you think we shall, John? Or do you reckon Mr Webb would be too polite to show the scorn that he has for nations who have such people in them?
John Reith
Webb’s article does not demonstrate good manners as I understand them.
I was going to speculate on the possibility of Webb’s manners permitting him to write a similar critique on the ability of Muslims to participate in modern scientific debate and technology and still believe that Allah created man from a clot of blood.
But as David Preiser has eloquently addressed the issue, I shall refrain.
“Last time I looked Canada and Mexico were both independent countries.” (Stuck Record)
Half of the land area of the Republic of Mexico was taken over by the United States during the 1840’s. That area now constitutes Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico.
Canada was attacked and threatened by the United States for more than a century. Canada stayed free because Britain was determined to defend it, just as Ulster has stayed British and stayed free, whether the Americans like it or not.
Okay. I’ll repeat myself, since you seem to have missed the point.
“Last time I looked Canada and Mexico were both independent countries.”
Is that statement correct, or false?
Does the fact that the US took territory from Mexico in the 1840s (160 years ago) mean that Mexico is not now an independent country?
Does the fact that the US had territorial disputes with Canada in the 18th century (200 years ago) mean that Canada is not now an independent country?
Are the independent countries of Canada and Mexico territorially threatened by the modern United States?
So, is my original statement correct or false?
Your go.
“Ulster has stayed British and stayed free”
Well, which one is it?
“Half of the land area of the Republic of Mexico was taken over by the United States during the 1840’s. That area now constitutes Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico.”
I suppose you can call that Mexican territory in some very abstract, legalistic way, but Texas at the time was completely under the control of the Comanche, who had obliterated the Caddoan and Wichita towns in the east and very nearly exterminated the various Tanoan pueblos in the west, and who only tolerated a few Mexican towns as a source of fresh horses to steal (their boast); there had been no Spanish or Mexican control of any land outside of very small enclaves in New Mexico and Arizona since the Pueblo Rebellion in 1680, rather a long time before any Anglos showed up, and as for California, Spanish-Mexican control never extended beyond a narrow coastal strip where the Franciscans were trying to Mexicanize the Chumash, Salinas, Esselen and various other peoples in an effort that is nowadays condemned as racist (so racist that it even compares to the very worst Anglo attempts to “civilize” the “Indians”.) And at present it seems as if half of Mexico is fleeing the country to find work in the US. Offered the chance (which could never happen) states like Oaxaca or Michoacan might be quite tempted to petition to join the union since that would immediatley confer US citizenship and free movement to the northern states. How’s that for imperialist expansionism? And as for Canada, it is a standing joke that BC would join the Union if only it didn’t include anything east of the Rockies.