No monkey business here please, we’re the BBC!

by

Published: 14 May 2019 (GMT+10)
Harry-Meghan-Archie
Prince Harry, Meghan and their new baby

Danny Baker, something of a house-hold name in the UK, in BBC radio broadcasting, got himself into hot water on Thursday 9th May for a tweet about the new royal baby. The tweet featured a black and white photo of a couple leaving a hospital, holding hands with a chimp dressed in a little suit and bowler hat, with the caption “Royal baby leaves hospital”. Sent to over half a million followers, it was posted after Prince Harry and his wife Meghan introduced their new son to the world as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The response of the BBC was swift and decisive and Baker found himself fired the next day, with a statement to the fact that the tweet went against the BBC’s ‘values’.

Baker, pleaded innocence, stating that he did not realize such imagery could be construed as racist, and therefore highly offensive. After hurriedly removing the photo, he re-tweeted that it, “Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased” (sic).

@PRODNOSE/TWITTERDanny-Baker-tweet
Danny Baker’s offensive tweet, which he later deleted.

So what’s the problem? Well, the mother of the Duchess of Sussex (actress Meghan Markle’s title since marrying Prince Harry) is Afro-American, and it is well known that racist slurs against people of African descent have involved monkeys. Meghan, sadly, has suffered a barrage of racial abuse online since being officially part of the Royal household, and Baker cannot be unaware of these facts.

But let’s think for a moment, why are monkeys used to insult people of African descent? The logical link of man’s supposed evolution from primates is very obvious, and is the elephant in the room when it comes to any virtue-signalling1 by social justice commentators, as to the perceived offensive nature of such imagery. (For instance, the well-known insult of monkey chants at football matches, or throwing banana peels at players of colour, the list goes on ad-nauseum).

The link between Darwin’s statements (in his Origin of Species) and his later followers regarding the racist implications of evolution are ably summed up by the late Stephen J. Gould: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”2 And it is this acceptance of evolutionary theory within education and society at large which is the fundamental problem.

Wikipedia.orgDarwin-statue
Statue of Charles Darwin at the Natural History Museum, London.

So when it comes to the BBC’s ‘values’, why should they find Baker’s tweet so offensive that it justifies his immediate sacking, when they themselves are the national purveyors of all things evolutionary? Such thinking is promoted at every turn by leading stars like David Attenborough and Brian Cox. It is therefore rank hypocrisy on the part of the BBC. If evolution is true, then so is the fact of evolved races of men, some of whom would be less developed than others. Even the co-discoverer of the DNA helix structure, James Watson, was very clear about the implications of evolution when he stated in his 2007 memoir: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.”3

When it comes to BBC ‘values’, they have moved far from their founding principles as stated on a Latin-text inscription inside Broadcasting House. Here, the BBC dedicates its program output “to Almighty God”. Only the biblical foundation of all people being made from one blood (Acts 17:26), is the answer to racism. Scripture is clear that we are all made in the image of God, and are all related to our forefather Adam. There is no room in the biblical world-view for racism, because the idea that races of man evolved separately from ape-like creatures is untrue. Therefore, we have the moral foundation upon which to judge the likes of Baker’s tweet as offensive and false. However, the BBC’s response is both hypocritical and inconsistent because of their explicit acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary ideas.

We wish the royal couple and their new baby every blessing. May the seventh heir to the British throne grow in wisdom and stature, and most of all may he come to know his Maker, who created him in His image, for a relationship with Himself.

References and notes

  1. Virtue signaling is speech that is conspicuous in the way it seeks to express virtue or moral piety. See, for example: Bartholomew, J., The awful rise of ‘virtue signaling’, spectator.co.uk, 18 April 2015. Return to text.
  2. Gould, S.J., Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Harvard University Press, p. 127, 1977. Return to text.
  3. Watson, J.D., Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science: And Other Lessons from a Life in Science, Oxford University Press, p. 19, 2007. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

Gina T.
Excellent article. It's incredible how the double standard is not seen by most. Keep up the great work!
Stephen T.
The note refers to virtue signalling expressing virtue or moral piety in a certain way. I may add that virtue signalling also involves transference of immorality, i.e. accusing others of immorality by the standards of the accuser when the accuser is also guilty of it. Romans 2:1.
Meg S.
Thank you for a fine article hitting all appropriate nails squarely on the head, particularly in the final comments regarding the future of young Archie. As a Brit by birth I was raised to respect the monarchy, and certainly Her Majesty’s staunch courage in upholding Christian values is to be admired, but as a scientist, with some training in genetics, I can only be thrilled with Prince Harry’s choice of a bride, bringing a fresh assortment of robust “commoner” genes into the royal pool (and with such style, loveliness, and beauty too). Danny Baker, as a seasoned journalist in his 60s, has not the faintest ground to claim he made “a…naïve…mistake”, or that he had to be “alerted by followers that this royal baby was of course mixed race”. On the one hand he claimed that he had “no racist intent”, that it “never occurred” to him, and yet admitted, “I needed no lessons on the centuries slurs equating simians and people of colour.” Of course he didn’t. The photo has no relevance to anything unless as a racial slur designed to cause someone pain or humiliation. One is reminded of Dr. Carl Wieland’s superb book “One Human Family” and I for one pray and long for the insane idea of different human “races” to be eradicated forever.
Gavin Cox
Thanks, Meg for your comment, and amen to the idea of racism being eradicated forever! One day it will be when, as described in Revelation, heaven will be filled with people from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, all praising God together!
Melvyne C.
Excellent point.

The hypocritic BBC. Truly insulting to post a photo of a man and woman holding the hands of a chimpanzee, with the caption “Royal Baby Leaves Hospital” by Danny Baker. They sack the same person for articulating what the BBC believes through Sir David Attenborough, we are descendent from apes.

Equally insulting by the BBC, the last supper is a remnant of apes sharing meals! (A BBC Global News article, “How and Why did Religion Evolve,” by Brandon Ambrosino, an evolutionist Christian, 19 April 2019; part I of 2).

Surely, it’s truly degrading to God’s divine law when evolutionist Christians believe the same! Imagine a photo with two chimpanzees/sub-humans proudly holding the hands of a perfect human child: ‘We have gotten a man from God’.
Damien S.
Perhaps their problem is that the image implied evolution was moving in the wrong direction. They took offence to implied devolution. Would they have got upset if it were two monkey parents and a human baby? ;-)
Gavin Cox
Thanks, Damien for your comment,
The image of the monkey may, or may not have been used in a racist way by Danny Baker, but others certainly have construed it that way, and the fact is images of monkeys have been used to insult those of African origin. The basis of that insult is the idea that some groups of people are less evolved than others. Only the Bible and the history in Genesis is the antidote for this kind of racist and offensive thinking. We are all descendants of Adam, so there is only one human race, made equally in the Image of God. So there can be no room for racism when the Bible is made the center of our thinking.
Laura B.
We make racism to be anything any more so even Christians are called "racists" if they speak out against Islam for an example or any other thing that is against God and His Will...In this instance, it was a very inappropriate cartoon... I think Meghan Markle makes a beautiful princess and is an asset to the royal family... Yes, the Biblical definition of racism does not match the world's definition of it...which seems to change on a daily basis. But we can still show the Biblical love to all we meet to counteract the world...and its unbiblical world view.
David B.
To be honest, I don't think Meghan Markle can be called Afro-American since her dad is Caucasian. She should be identified as bi-racial
Gavin Cox
Dear David,
Thanks for your comment. However, I don't call Meghan Markle Afro American in my article, I state "...the mother of the Duchess of Sussex ... is Afro-American..."
I disagree with the phrase 'bi-racial', so I don't use it in my article, because it is loaded with evolutionary presuppositions. From a biblical position, there is and always has been, only one human race, because we are all descended from Adam. Therefore from that point of view, logically the phrase 'bi-racial' means only part-human, which I am sure you don't mean. The teaching of evolution implies some are less evolved and therefore, less worthy than others, and in terms of value, of no significant worth. Indeed, even in Darwin's time, it was argued that the African races were only partly evolved and were therefore only part-human. A truly terrible thing to believe, which has caused untold misery down the ages. I can only re-state, that the history as revealed in Genesis is the only antidote for racism. We are all made in God's Image, whether black or white, or any shade in-between, and are therefore of significant worth to God.
David B.
Gavin,

Regarding my previous comment and your reply:

I see now where you referred to her mother but the way the train of thought of the passage carried forward, it is somewhat easy to misconstrue what you thought her complete ethnic (is that the acceptable term? (-: ) origin was. Her father wasn't mentioned so others may also misconstrue this

I agree with your point on 'bi-racialism'. I used that because that is the common language not because I believe we are not all brothers and sisters under one father, Adam. When examining that thought process, you would need to conclude that Cain and Abel were each a 'race' as are all siblings which can get confusing

I actually also don't like the hyphenated words like Afro- or Indo- myself as it is yet another divisor to give us an excuse to be at each other's throats. We don't need any more conjured up excuses

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.