BBC Focus Magazine

[Roysyboy]

I sent the text below to Dr Alice Roberts but her assistant thought it was "rude" and didn't pass it on.
--------------------
In part two of the BBC series Origins of Us, Alice Roberts effectively argues that man has always lived in the monogamous, nuclear-family unit. She uses the Hazda people as an example of typical hunter-gatherers, implying that because they live in nuclear families today, they must have done this since time immemorial. This is hardly scientific. She also implies that the Hazda example can be applied to the totality of past human experience. Again, such a generalization is not scientific.
In the program, Alice refers to what she calls "defining characteristics" of humans, i.e., that distinguish man from all other animals. This is a descriptive apology for science. One can argue that a "defining characteristic" is that no other animal, bar man, has set foot on the moon. This method is not too useful. In reality, man is distinguished from animals when he begins to produce his means of subsistence. No other animal does this in a way comparable to humans. Only humans have made a transition to pastoralism and farming, i.e., to beginning to produce their means of subsistence.
In her method, if one can call it this, Alice fails to recognize that chimpanzees are also hunter-gatherers, albeit simple hunter-gatherers, as are the Hazda people. But chimpanzees don't live in monogamous nuclear families. The alarm bells should have rung in Alice's head.
Alice's position appears philistine. She seems to be unaware of, for example, Frederick Engels' Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. Wikipedia says this about it:
"This book argues that the first domestic institution in human history was not the family but the matrilineal clan. Engels here follows Lewis H. Morgan's thesis as outlined in his major book, Ancient Society. Morgan was a radical American business lawyer who championed the land rights of Native Americans and became adopted as an honorary member of the Seneca Iroquois tribe. Traditionally, the Iroquois had lived in communal longhouses based on matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence, an arrangement giving women much solidarity and power. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the Morgan-Engels theory that early human kinship was matrilineal was considered by anthropologists to have been disproved. Modern evolutionary anthropology is currently reassessing that position."
In response to this, Alice's alternative can only be called infantile.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well Roysyboy, I think you were doing ok, in a rather blunt sort of way, until you used the words "philistine" and "infantile" which, I have to say I would find, not just rude, but a tad offensive.

A friendlier choice of words might have served you better perhaps?

That's not to say your observations lack merit and indeed Dr. Roberts may well be amazed at how much of what she said and illustrated in the making of the programme actually ended up on the 'cutting room floor'.
So it is altogether possible that these points are moot anyway?

[Shadowwolf]

It's hardly surprising it went nowhere given the language you chose to frame your criticisms.

In response to this, Alice's alternative can only be called infantile.

As you state in your opening sentence you sent your observations to Alice's assistant who did not pass it on, thus Dr Roberts has likely not seen this and has made no response of any description. Certainly nothing that could be termed infantile, however, how might one describe a post complaining that Dr Roberts had not paid proper respect to a random message sent to them?

[Roysyboy]

I don't really want comments about style, but about content.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I think the important thing to bear in mind here is that it was a television programme rather than an article in a learned journal, however if you still feel aggrieved by your rebutal then I think that your best course of action may be to complain to the BBC itself?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms

[Shadowwolf]

I don't really want comments about style, but about content.

I am most sorry but the opening and closing lines of your post suggested that your primary concern was your complaint and the response you received.

Probably should have left them out as they don't appear relevant

[Roysyboy]

Yes, you are right, I presented this all wrong.

The piece I wrote that I quoted is a polemic. They don't get into polemic with the niceties of "scientific" discourse. But we in forums are not governed by the etiquette of academic discussion. My polemic is justified because this is not the BBC presenting innocent science, but, in this case, a political position is effectively being put forward, naivelly and, I think, innocently by Dr Alice in claiming that all hunter-gatherers lived in monogamous nuclear families, i.e. "pair bonding". In other words, it's political propaganda by the BBC, maintaining the status quo by agreeing with the incumbent government, the Church of England, etc., in continuing to peddle, what I now think is rubbish: the whole idea of monogamy.

I spent an hour researching monagamy in Albatrosses (cos they are notoriously monogamous). I recommend doing this, it really does clarify matters and it convinced me that I was absolutely correct to accuse Dr Alice of philistinism and whatever. (Sorry, exhaustion has got me, I'll sign off)

[M Paul Lloyd]

Correct me if I'm worong Roysyboy but I'm struggling to work out how we got from Dr. Alice Roberts, speaking as an anatomist, voicing an opinion on anthropolgy to the BBC peddling monogomistic propoganda ?

I'm left with the assumption that you do not like the BBC nor agree with monogamy as a cultural model but I have to say even from a laymans perspective I can see how a tribal system would fall apart very quickly if it were down to free love. What would be the insentive to protect and nurture a family? Its an evolutionary dead end if you ask me, but then I'm no expert, however perhaps you would like to avail us of your credentials on this subject Roysyboy so we may better appreciate your authority to speak on this subject as I'm afraid that memebership of an online forum just doesn't cut it.

Also, what evidence dio you have that the BBC is responsible for mounting a propoganda campaign?
I may be biased but I just don't see it myself so I would love to be given the facts of the matter.

[Shadowwolf]

what I now think is rubbish: the whole idea of monogamy.

There is an ongoing debate within anthropology as to when monogamy evolved as a practice in human society. It is ongoing, hence it has not been settled and thus we can expect that proponents for either side will put forward what they think is the best explanation as they understand it; it is not clear cut. Regardless of whether this happened relatively late or was a staple part of the earliest societies, it has little or no bearing on whether the concept of monogamy is rubbish. It is not rubbish and clearly exists in various societies and within various types of animals; depending on what exact definition you use for monogamy mind. Monogamy is not a law and has never been claimed as such that I am aware of - neither is polygamy - but it's not non-existent.

In other words, it's political propaganda by the BBC, maintaining the status quo by agreeing with the incumbent government, the Church of England, etc.,

So monogamy is the objective of some ongoing, long running conspiracy of church and government? When did this start? What's monogamy then, some form of wrongful social control to keep the masses docile and in line?

Methinks that going down that road is not a good idea.

[Roysyboy]

re M paul LLoyd comment:

Who said the only alternative to monogamy is free love? -- so much for YOUR scientific method.

re comment by Shadowwolf:

What justifies your pompous huffing and puffing? being an administarator and posting lots of replies?

[M Paul Lloyd]

re M paul LLoyd comment:

Who said the only alternative to monogamy is free love? -- so much for YOUR scientific method.

Who said I was a scientist.....?? But seriously, what ever do you mean by that statement?

Oh and some insights into your qualifications and sources regarding your claim that the BBC is a propaganda machine would be appreciated, after all you cannot just throw such derogatory comments about without justifyng them now can you?

[Lateralman]

Hey, this thread is interfering with my calma. Love, light and peace, flower children.

[M Paul Lloyd]

That should be 'Karma' Lateralman, but I get your drift.

[Shadowwolf]

What justifies your pompous huffing and puffing? being an administarator and posting lots of replies?

Pompous huffing and puffing eh, perhaps you would care to indicate where this huffing and puffing is or do you really mean that you're not being agreed with and such upsets you? After the OP example which was virtually no more than a complaint that Dr Robertson failed to give you your dues, it would appear that you merely seek validation and if that is not forthcoming get annoyed.

My last post responded to your assertion that monogamy was rubbish and that mention of it on the BBC constituted propaganda as well as insinuating some form of conspiracy. Disagreement is neither pompous nor huffing, but why bother answering any of the content of those replies when you can fly into an indignant huff instead and conveniently ignore them.

As for the bit about admin and number of replies, seriously!?

[Isee]

Amusing thread,
"How to alienate your audience with acting like a brat 101"
Ironically I was with the OP at the beginning, but it became less relevant as posting went on.

[Lateralman]

You dudes are showing your age.

Karma was a word for the children of the sixties, when everyone could freely chill in the cool atmosphere. Calma is a word I borrowed from a common expression from that northern scouse town, often used in the phrase “Calma down, calma down,” as it is more suited to today’s uptight environment...right on.

[M Paul Lloyd]

uptight environment

"Not 'arf"

[KingPhillip]

MPL, I don't grok ... or I'm not hip to what you're saying. Can you dig it?

[M Paul Lloyd]

I dig it man. Is the word of Fluff the Free-Man. And, the banana gets it. Groovy.

[Healerman]