Do they need to do that with every stereotypical character though? Off the top of my head I can think of Groundskeeper Willie, Fat Tony, Cookie Kwan, the Korean shopkeeper guy, Chief Wiggum, and heck even the latin bumblebee guy. All these characters are arguably detrimental to the image of the groups portrayed. Do they all need sterotype-bucking handcuffs ?
Edit: actually you can probably scratch Wiggum off the list as Eddie and Lou are pretty “normal” as far as Simpsons characters go
Does the show ever acknowledge that Apu’s character is in a pickle because he’s a minority who matches stereotypes? I used to watch the show regularly as a kid but not so much as an adult, so there’s a lot that I’ve probably missed. But I wonder if that is part of why he’s problematic.
Exactly. My dad was a cop, a highly competent one. Am I supposed to be offended that there is not one competent policeman in Springfield?
I’m afraid that you will have to excuse yourself from every discussion of satire or sarcasm you encounter for the rest of your life. Justice and respect are important, but to demand that a satire portray just and respectful treatment of every character? That’s patently ridiculous.
I haven’t watched the Simpson’s in a LONG time. I’m surprised it is still on the air.
Have Hank stop doing the character and hire a real Indian actor to do it using an authentic voice.
You should not have ANY obligation to treat a FICTIONAL CHARACTER, ANY fictional character, respectfully on a damn TV show. Especially on a comedy that is slamming everybody!! I should get indignant that Homer is yellow. I mean who the hell has bright yellow skin! Racist!
Apu works in a convenient store? BFD! Some Indians actually DO work at a convenient store. So why don’t we make him work in IT. There’s 2 indian guys working right next to me FFS. Oh, is that too disrespectful? Okay, how about a doctor? Too disrespectful? Okay, let’s switch him out with Willie and have him become a janitor. I’ve never seen an Indian Janitor. Is that okay.
I’m sick of PC especially the nitpick crap, funnily enough it is almost always strongly pushed by self-loathing whites SJWs.
My opinion: take it as yet another signal that the show’s run should have ended while things were better.
Except, of course, you know what started this whole discussion was a response to Hari Kondabolu’s documentary, not your imagined “self-loathing white SJW,” and further explored in this thread by folks of Indian descent, who seem to share a similar problem with the character. It’s never wrong to listen to people whom the stereotype affects and take its cultural impact into consideration.
There was that guy called Ted, (not tea) who used the Pawnee constitution to show he could steal anything he liked from an Indian. “Not that kind of Indian!”
I just found this thread and read it through. I’m stunned, though I probably shouldn’t be, how precisely the posts mirror the larger discussion in America.
On one side, we have - pardon my assumption - a group of older white men decrying all political correctness, denying that any stereotyping problem exists, accusing those who see a problem as being too easily offended, and asking basically “why can’t you guys take a joke?”
On the other side we have people who don’t mentally live in the 1950s and can see the big picture of a changed world, saying that we can’t and shouldn’t go back to the white bubble where others were either invisible or inferior.
For the record, I’m an older white male. I lived in that bubble and I remember it well. I can’t defend it or my ignorance. I hope I’ve changed sufficiently, but who knows. I see my age peers bristle at political correctness as a personal attack. Hey, guys: it is. You’re going to be attacked every time you defend the white bubble, every time you obstinately refuse to look at anyone else’s perspective, every time you tell people to get over it. When that happens I’m hoping I’ll be in the front row wearing my “We’re Not All Like That” t-shirt.
What’s really ironic is that because of all you guys, people look at me and see an old white man and judge me solely because of the color of my skin and the white hair. But what can I do? This particular stereotype is all too true, and we have the posts in this thread to prove it.
I think The Simpsons writers are justified in their starting position, which is, you know, “We have loads of stereotypes voiced by white actors, it’s kind of our thing, why is this one such a big deal?” But that’s basically ignoring the fact that this is a discussion topic because of a well-written article explaining why Apu was, in fact, such a big deal to many Asian-Americans. If there are similar communities of Irish, Korean, Italian, Appalachian, and Mexican Americans who feel that the show portrayed their culture with a troubling stereotype, maybe the writers should take a step back and think about whether they want to continue to peddle in stereotypes. But at the moment, they just need to look at this one stereotype and reflect on why this one seems to have resulted in a different outcry.
It’s like if a show had a bunch of white actors appearing in <race>-face paint, but only the African American community got upset. Would it be enough if they said, “Sure we have an actor in blackface, but we have lots of actors in lots of different makeups, it’s what we do!” Or should they consider maybe that various portrayals are perceived differently.
It seems to me that many people who criticize the show take PC above all else and, more importantly, do not watch the show, so feel so entitled to criticize.
The show has, in fact, had another non-stereotypical Indian on the show, Apu’s nephew, Jay, in the episode Much Apu About Something. Or, does that not count because he’s >gasp< Americanized?
Where’s the outrage for the already mentioned Groundskeeper Willy? Or, Fat Tony and his mob? AFAIK, all the Italians (except the chef, Luigi Risotto (really?)) are mobsters.
Yep - sounds about right for me, too.
The Simpsons writers are arguing on the same side as the Washington Redskins and that is just 
:eek: to me.
Maybe Irish and Italian Americans didn’t have the same experience because of those stereotypes as Indian Americans did because of Apu.
Ironically I had a bigger issue with Apu when he first appeared than I do now. Just as if I actually saw a person apparently of Indian descent working in an actual convenience store, I’d be temporarily taken aback, but after awhile they’d just be some guy working in a convenience store, and not an uncomfortable stereotype in addition to being just some guy working in a convenience store.
So, now Apu is just the proprietor of the Kwik-e-mart to me, in addition to being a person who happens to be Indian, but it took some time.
One of the Indian American actors mentioned in the documentary and quoted in the articles,Utkarsh Ambudkar, portrayed Apu’s nephew in the 2016 “Much Apu About Something” where he specifically critisized Apu for being a stereotype.
I understand some of the issues with the hammy accent and stereotypical job, but Apu is a developed, important and generally sympathetic character on the show. I can understand the Apu-based taunts some of these guys recieved as kids leaving a lasting impression but I wonder if it would have been much different if Apu never existed.
I said most. Not all. You can find a segment of people that will be offended by anything. And you can find segments from the same culture that are NOT offended. It just so happens that A LOT of people being offended on behalf of different cultures are white.
Am I sorry that some kid in middle school got told to “Please come again?” or whatever? Yeah sure. But I blame that on ahole middle schoolers, not The Simpsons. And there will ALWAYS be ahole middle schoolers, that will find some way to ridicule others, in often far more humiliating ways.
When’s the last time you heard an adult mock another indian adult with a stereotypical accent? I never have, and I’ve been working with Indians for the last 20 years. This is totally overblown.
To their face? Never. Outside of that context? It’s not terribly uncommon, in my experience, but I may hang around more assholes than most people and, to my knowledge, the accent is not directly Simpsons-inspired.
It isn’t necessary to be an old white man to see that - for its proper effect - satire has to show, and flirt with actually embodying, disrespect and injustice. That’s what satire is, folks. Satire is parading injustice and disrespect in front of the audience, as a way of (to get all Shakespearean) “holding up a mirror to nature”.
Apu (and much of The Simpsons as a whole) relies on irony as well - in the sense that the audience “gets it” about a certain issue but the characters themselves are spectacularly clueless about it.
Satire is always a risk, because it relies on the fact that the audience and the satirist share some ideas and assumptions about right, wrong, good, bad, and often of some more nuanced things as well.
Satire can flop if the writer and audience don’t share enough background. Satire can also flop if the writing is not good. And a satire that used to be good can later flop if “times have changed” - meaning that times have stayed exactly the same but a lot of people’s opinions have changed.
Our next segment will be “The Problem with David Mamet.”