Richard Dawkins expresses dismay over slave owner ancestor story

 
Richard Dawkins has put down as 'surreal' a Sunday Telegraph article linking his ancestor with the slave trade. Photograph: Murdo Macleod

Sunday 19 February 2012

 

Evolutionary biologist and atheist calls 'surreal' Sunday Telegraph article citing 18th-century forefather

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist, is used to criticism from those who do not share his views on religion or the origins of mankind.

But he has expressed surprise at the latest attack, which claims the scientist faces awkward questions because some of his ancestors were slave owners.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that Henry Dawkins had amassed more than 1,000 slaves in Jamaica by the time of his death in 1744, and quoted campaigners calling on Dawkins to pay reparations.

But Dawkins hit back on his blog, describing the interview and subsequent article as "surreal".

"At the end of a week of successfully rattling cages, I was ready for yet another smear or diversionary tactic of some kind," said Dawkins, who clashed on the BBC Today programme with Giles Fraser, formerly canon chancellor of St Paul's cathedral, on Tuesday. "But in my wildest dreams I couldn't have imagined the surreal form this one was to take."

Dawkins said a reporter had called him and named a number of his ancestors who he said were slave owners.

After the reporter quoted the biblical verse about the Lord "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" Dawkins said he ended the conversation.

However, he said the reporter rang back and suggested Dawkins may have inherited a "slave supporting" gene from his distant relative.

"'You obviously need a genetics lesson,' I replied," Dawkins wrote on his blog. "Henry Dawkins was my great great great great great grandfather, so approximately one in 128 of my genes are inherited from him (that's the correct figure; in the heat of the moment on the phone, I got it wrong by a couple of powers of two)."

The article in the Sunday Telegraph went on to state that the "Dawkins family estate, consisting of 400 acres near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was bought at least in part with wealth amassed through sugar plantation and slave ownership."

However, Dawkins said the estate was now a small working farm struggling to survive and "worth peanuts".
Dawkins added: "As it happens, my ancestry also boasts an unbroken line of six generations of Anglican clergymen, from the Rev William Smythies (born 1635) to his great great great grandson the Rev Edward Smythies (born 1818). I wonder if [the reporter] thinks I've inherited a gene for piety too.

"I can't help wondering at the quality of journalism which sees a scoop in attacking a man for what his five-greats grandfather did. Is there really nothing more current going on?"

The Sunday Telegraph declined to comment.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
MY THOUGHTS:

As one can see, even in England the battle by Christians against science is showing itself in what should be objective journalism. In an attempt to discredit Mr. Dawkin by way of his ancestry from hundreds of years ago is so feeble to even be called journalism. The shear ignorance of the reporter and of the editor who approved the story printed in the Sunday Telegraph is also a prime indicator of how journalism has declined in the

Western nations since large corporations have purchased them. The objective now is not seeking the truth in an event, but to create sensationalism to draw readers and then advertising revenue for profit. Yes, of course there has always been a level of this since advertising was introduce into newspapers not long after Gutenberg created the printing press and the printers needed more revenue than what the price of the newspaper could bring in.

And yes, newspapers have always had their biases when reporting political stories. But there was a big shift in the 20th century to create an ethic of objective reporting, not necessarily balanced, but to be as factual as possible.  Today however, we are witnessing the return of the bias of the editor, the owner and of the reporters reflected in the stories and much of it without any fact checking and out right lies, such as with Rupert Murdock's media empire. This includes the famously false reporting by his "Fox News Channel" in the US.

We are witnessing the effects of the Conservative party in England of Margaret Thatcher that has paralleled the conservative movement in the US. Part of this is because of the influence and power of non other than Rupert Murdock. He would make or break anyone running for Parliament in his newspapers in England.

Also part of that parallel is aligning with the Christian religious faction to impose Christian, this time Anglican Law, onto the people. Again this is partially related to Rupert's personal strong Christian belief.

England has experienced the terror of church control of the state, and yes even today, the Anglican Church has great influence in governmental affairs, especially in the smaller villages. Also their royalty must be christened by the church.

Since England does not have a Constitution as such, but more "Common Law" and laws established by parliament, but not guaranteed, they can be changed by any parliament vote or court ruling.