- 8,446
- 1,884
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
isnt the yt hillbilly character just as stereotypical? as well as various characters on the show?
Is apu a racist character?? VOL...THE PROBLEM WITH APU
- 1,372
- 1,826
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2016
A lot of things are racist/stereotypical but the degree to which they are a problem for a person's experience in this country is dependent on context.
- 8,731
- 7,457
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
Naw I got that part. I am also not equating black face with white face, what I am saying is that these things that are 'outdated' still happen today no? I hear a blackface story every halloween.
- 8,731
- 7,457
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
I know this is moving the goal posts but these jokes are all being made, just not with black folks in the audience.......So is it offensive only because we hear it? Or because these types of jokes are being said in the first place.....
- 4,047
- 4,969
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2012
We either got to let jokes rock or deem them offensive. If it stops being funny comedy evolves. I don’t really hold tv shows/comedy acts etc to the same standard I hold actual people or politicians. When a tv show does this all good but when someone like trump makes a mockery the way people speak it really gets me.
- 87,863
- 50,386
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
Yeah but I think this is specifically more about how minorities are portrayed to the masses more so than a show indulging in stereotypes for comedy.
- 15,201
- 4,527
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
This reminds to marathon the whole series. I will catch every episode.
- 8,446
- 1,884
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
ah, ok, i can see that
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
over 20 years b...u better use some vacation time.
- 7,371
- 29,055
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
I grew up with the Simpsons. Seasons 2 through 10 helped define my sense of humor, and, for me, there has never been and likely will never be a sharper social satire of American culture in my lifetime. To this day, I routinely reference Simpsons quotes from 25 years ago and could likely recite entire episodes from memory. While its imitators rely on crude, lazy shock humor, the Simpsons brims with heart, insight, and clever historical parody. That's what makes Apu, a blatant ethnic stereotype, so unforgivable. I don't understand how he can reasonably be interpreted otherwise.
The Simpsons' location has become an in-joke for the series. We don't know exactly where Springfield is because Springfield is, ostensibly, Anytown, USA. While exaggerated for effect, viewers are expected to find something familiar and relatable in the show's portrayal of suburban America. Without a "kernel of truth," the parody becomes unmoored from its context. A movie takeoff, like Spaceballs, doesn't work unless viewers can easily identify the links to and points of departure from the source material.
Apu was essentially created as set dressing for the Simpsons' version of a 7-eleven in the early 1990's, someone to serve the beef jerky and "Squishee" drinks.
The show's writers have tried to give Apu depth over the years. He came to the United States to earn a doctorate in computer science: http://www.criticalcommons.org/Memb...impsons-on-immigration-and-technological/view
They upgraded him from an employee of the Kwik-E-Mart corporation to the store's owner. He was, briefly, the town's most eligible bachelor. He refuses to eat any food that contains animal products for ethical reasons.
All of this, however, is like building a house on a bad foundation. As a character, Apu can't be redeemed.
Let's start with the name. "Nahasapeemapetilon" is not an authentic Indian surname. Reportedly, a Simpsons writer recalled the name of a former classmate and combined both his first and last names together to create an elaborate, exaggerated simulacrum of an actual Indian surname. It's not all the dissimilar from all the offensive American Indian characters in the "abstract sentences as names" pastiche, or this:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/ame...-jewberg-fake-senior-pentagon-russia-analyst/
Do Indian Americans work in convenience stores? Yes, just as Jewish people work as lawyers and bankers, some Irish people drink heavily, and some Italian-Americans have participated in organized crime. When that's the only depiction people see, the associated groups are dehumanized and reduced to stereotypical caricatures. The "Indians on TV" episode of Master of None offers an entertaining introduction to this phenomenon.
Then there's the issue of "brownface." Apu is voiced by a White actor, Hank Azaria. Even when the writers introduced a new Indian character, Apu's arranged wife, Manjula, they cast yet another White actor, Jan Hooks, to portray her. Over four million Americans claim Indian heritage. It's fair to say the show's casting director had options.
If Cletus and his family were the only White people on the show, and they were voiced by non-White actors affecting a heightened Southern/Appalachian accent for comedic effect, a lot of people who currently think this is "PC nonsense" would almost certainly take issue. "This is what they think of us?"
Over the years, The Simpsons attempted to grant Barney dignity by depicting his attempts to recover from alcoholism, which, presumably, someone at the show decided was no laughing matter. Yet, even now, no one has seen fit to sunset the Apu character. Apu can't be rehabilitated through re-casting or character developments. Introducing a "normal" replacement character would likely backfire, as the character would exist only for the purpose of tokenism, and such characters tend to be bland by design to avoid creating any negative associations. That's the problem with only having one or two characters representing an entire group that is, itself, grossly underrepresented. The Simpsons, however, constantly introduces new characters: Frank Grimes, Hank Scorpio, Rex Banner, Chester J. Lampwick, Ruth and Laura Powers, Arthur Fortune, Llewellyn Sinclair, Lyle Lanley, Professor Lombardo, and so on.
The Simpsons world is full of possibilities. Why, then, is the only possibility for an Indian character, "immigrant convenience store clerk?"
The Simpsons' location has become an in-joke for the series. We don't know exactly where Springfield is because Springfield is, ostensibly, Anytown, USA. While exaggerated for effect, viewers are expected to find something familiar and relatable in the show's portrayal of suburban America. Without a "kernel of truth," the parody becomes unmoored from its context. A movie takeoff, like Spaceballs, doesn't work unless viewers can easily identify the links to and points of departure from the source material.
Apu was essentially created as set dressing for the Simpsons' version of a 7-eleven in the early 1990's, someone to serve the beef jerky and "Squishee" drinks.
The show's writers have tried to give Apu depth over the years. He came to the United States to earn a doctorate in computer science: http://www.criticalcommons.org/Memb...impsons-on-immigration-and-technological/view
They upgraded him from an employee of the Kwik-E-Mart corporation to the store's owner. He was, briefly, the town's most eligible bachelor. He refuses to eat any food that contains animal products for ethical reasons.
All of this, however, is like building a house on a bad foundation. As a character, Apu can't be redeemed.
Let's start with the name. "Nahasapeemapetilon" is not an authentic Indian surname. Reportedly, a Simpsons writer recalled the name of a former classmate and combined both his first and last names together to create an elaborate, exaggerated simulacrum of an actual Indian surname. It's not all the dissimilar from all the offensive American Indian characters in the "abstract sentences as names" pastiche, or this:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/ame...-jewberg-fake-senior-pentagon-russia-analyst/
Do Indian Americans work in convenience stores? Yes, just as Jewish people work as lawyers and bankers, some Irish people drink heavily, and some Italian-Americans have participated in organized crime. When that's the only depiction people see, the associated groups are dehumanized and reduced to stereotypical caricatures. The "Indians on TV" episode of Master of None offers an entertaining introduction to this phenomenon.
Then there's the issue of "brownface." Apu is voiced by a White actor, Hank Azaria. Even when the writers introduced a new Indian character, Apu's arranged wife, Manjula, they cast yet another White actor, Jan Hooks, to portray her. Over four million Americans claim Indian heritage. It's fair to say the show's casting director had options.
If Cletus and his family were the only White people on the show, and they were voiced by non-White actors affecting a heightened Southern/Appalachian accent for comedic effect, a lot of people who currently think this is "PC nonsense" would almost certainly take issue. "This is what they think of us?"
Over the years, The Simpsons attempted to grant Barney dignity by depicting his attempts to recover from alcoholism, which, presumably, someone at the show decided was no laughing matter. Yet, even now, no one has seen fit to sunset the Apu character. Apu can't be rehabilitated through re-casting or character developments. Introducing a "normal" replacement character would likely backfire, as the character would exist only for the purpose of tokenism, and such characters tend to be bland by design to avoid creating any negative associations. That's the problem with only having one or two characters representing an entire group that is, itself, grossly underrepresented. The Simpsons, however, constantly introduces new characters: Frank Grimes, Hank Scorpio, Rex Banner, Chester J. Lampwick, Ruth and Laura Powers, Arthur Fortune, Llewellyn Sinclair, Lyle Lanley, Professor Lombardo, and so on.
The Simpsons world is full of possibilities. Why, then, is the only possibility for an Indian character, "immigrant convenience store clerk?"
rbk93
Supporter
- 14,102
- 13,336
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2016
Don't know if I'll make it through all 29 seasons, but watching it now to appreciate the show I did once love.
Right up there with the Office as one of my favorite TV shows ever.
Right up there with the Office as one of my favorite TV shows ever.
- 2,220
- 3,825
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2004
Over 20 years experience = At least a PHD right? In theatre, there is suspension of disbelief, where the audience accepts things that aren’t exactly true as they help tell a story. This is definitely that.
- 36,573
- 48,787
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
It's just a cartoon show, Jesus Christ.
- 69,586
- 106,101
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
And Birth of a Nation was just a movie, don't know why folks stay trippin.
- 6,847
- 16,664
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
I am not looking to triangulate or be contrarian for its own sake. I can see where the pro Apu and anti Apu factions are coming from.
For the pro Apu factions, I'd say:
- Cartoons and fiction, in general, do not have an obligation to educate audiences and show a broad sampling of the material conditions of every group shown in the story.
- If offense by any group can veto a comedy bit, we would not have any comedy.
- Comparing Apu to Mistrel shows and Birth of a Nation is hyperbolic. Not only are the latter just visually grotesque, they exist as part of the nation's founding narrative that black people are dumb, lascivious brutes who must be contained by systemic application of white violence.
To the anti Apu side, I'd say:
- Simpsons edited the New York episode due to 9/11 so the claim that they will never change due to audience complaints is false.
- It was problematic back in 1990, it's just that South Asians did not have the voice and platform that they have today.
- Simpsons is a smart show (or at least it was very smart in its first decade) so lazy stereotypes are especially bad. This also brings me to this point...
I think that the essence of humor is elucidating the difference between reality and what an authority says it is. depending on the context, the authority can be politicians, law enforcement, the media, business leaders, educators as well as advertisers, event promoters, small businesses, self appointed experts and really anyone who makes a claim that they have some sort of truth to tell.
The joke is to point out he discrepancy and by doing so, you are calling someone a liar and being called a liar can often times cause offense.
In the case of Apu, the Simpsons are not only failing to point out a false claim by an authority. In fact, they are themselves making false claims, the very sin that the show usually mocks so artfully.
The offense with Apu is not caused by comedy (defined by pointing out a gap between a claim and a truth), it is caused by punching down onto a marginalized group and being lazy at that.
For the pro Apu factions, I'd say:
- Cartoons and fiction, in general, do not have an obligation to educate audiences and show a broad sampling of the material conditions of every group shown in the story.
- If offense by any group can veto a comedy bit, we would not have any comedy.
- Comparing Apu to Mistrel shows and Birth of a Nation is hyperbolic. Not only are the latter just visually grotesque, they exist as part of the nation's founding narrative that black people are dumb, lascivious brutes who must be contained by systemic application of white violence.
To the anti Apu side, I'd say:
- Simpsons edited the New York episode due to 9/11 so the claim that they will never change due to audience complaints is false.
- It was problematic back in 1990, it's just that South Asians did not have the voice and platform that they have today.
- Simpsons is a smart show (or at least it was very smart in its first decade) so lazy stereotypes are especially bad. This also brings me to this point...
I think that the essence of humor is elucidating the difference between reality and what an authority says it is. depending on the context, the authority can be politicians, law enforcement, the media, business leaders, educators as well as advertisers, event promoters, small businesses, self appointed experts and really anyone who makes a claim that they have some sort of truth to tell.
The joke is to point out he discrepancy and by doing so, you are calling someone a liar and being called a liar can often times cause offense.
In the case of Apu, the Simpsons are not only failing to point out a false claim by an authority. In fact, they are themselves making false claims, the very sin that the show usually mocks so artfully.
The offense with Apu is not caused by comedy (defined by pointing out a gap between a claim and a truth), it is caused by punching down onto a marginalized group and being lazy at that.
- 44,352
- 73,998
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2004
FOX
In an interview with USA Today about the show’s recording-breaking 636th episode, The Simpsons creator Matt Groening publicly addressed the Apu controversy for the first time. To recap: comedian Hari Kondabolu made a documentary, The Problem with Apu, that addresses how Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, an Indian immigrant voiced by a white man, is symptomatic of a bigger issue: how people of color are depicted in pop culture. It’s a well-reasoned film, which The Simpsons dismissed with a joke that did not go over well. After the episode aired, showrunner Al Jean tweeted that the show will “try to find an answer that is popular & more important right,” while Hank Azaria, who portrays Apu, offered to “step aside” from voicing the character.
"When asked if he’s thought about the criticism of Apu as a stereotype, he replied, “Not really. I’m proud of what we do on the show. And I think it’s a time in our culture where people love to pretend they’re offended.” Groening then added, “We’ll let the show speak for itself.”
In an interview with USA Today about the show’s recording-breaking 636th episode, The Simpsons creator Matt Groening publicly addressed the Apu controversy for the first time. To recap: comedian Hari Kondabolu made a documentary, The Problem with Apu, that addresses how Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, an Indian immigrant voiced by a white man, is symptomatic of a bigger issue: how people of color are depicted in pop culture. It’s a well-reasoned film, which The Simpsons dismissed with a joke that did not go over well. After the episode aired, showrunner Al Jean tweeted that the show will “try to find an answer that is popular & more important right,” while Hank Azaria, who portrays Apu, offered to “step aside” from voicing the character.
"When asked if he’s thought about the criticism of Apu as a stereotype, he replied, “Not really. I’m proud of what we do on the show. And I think it’s a time in our culture where people love to pretend they’re offended.” Groening then added, “We’ll let the show speak for itself.”
- 53,479
- 21,058
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
I didn’t want to watch the documentary but someone summarized it as indian people being mad and blaming apu for them being made fun of as kids.
- 69,586
- 106,101
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
I don't think the comparison to birth of a nation was hyperbolic. The initial poster made a quick, surface level dismissal of The Simpsons as a piece of art/media with no regard to the content. Anything could've been put there really in that context, **** I could've said Transformers.
- 69,586
- 106,101
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
I find these people who want to dictate what people shouldn't be offended by more problematic than this fake "everything is pc now" narrative.
- 53,479
- 21,058
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
He should’ve just said he didn’t care.
- 39,317
- 79,129
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- 18,846
- 18,039
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
Should I be mad about the Mexican Bee? 
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
spot on.
- 6,847
- 16,664
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
What Birth of a Nation articulated was orders of magnitude worse because it dramatized an already centuries' old blood libel against black people.
On the other hand, Birth of a Nation and the Simpsons are on the same level in the sense that pop culture does indeed shape ideology. To your original point, it is way more than just a cartoon in the way that Birth of a Nation is way more than just a movie.
- 18,846
- 18,039
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
Most stereotypes become stereotypes why?
