As a black person, nothing in this thread is remotely surprising.
Among others, I know that the convenience store nearest to me (about a quarter mile) was once a L’il Cricket but was bought out by Patels. And there was a dramatic local event years back where a guy takes a Patel hostage at a convenience store–there was a standoff, the police used a bulldozer to knock a hole in the back of the store, and we got to see the hostage-taker shot live on-air. (The police claimed that he shot himself, but it was clear from the live footage from the moment that it happened that his gun wasn’t pointed towards himself, and finally they had to change their story.) (Of course that is very tangential to this thread, but it is an interesting story.)
No, it is not. Politically correct killjoys are not a downtrodden class. They aren’t making fun of Indian Americans for being politically correct killjoys. They were responding to a direct criticism and it’s bullshit to say anything other than groveling is “punching down”. Most especiallywhen a notable number of the critics are middle aged white guys.
Have you ever seen a black comedian imitate or satirize another race/ethnicity?
Let’s see, this started because members of a minority group talked about how they have had to put up with shit because of their ethnicity and how certain media portrayals (such as Apu) have directly or indirectly contributed to those negative experiences. This minority group has historically been overlooked in discussions about racial and ethic representation. Consequently, these are critical viewpoints that the mainstream doesn’t all too often hear. They are speaking up so people are more aware of the negative impact that stereotypes have on them. There were no calls for shutting down The Simpson’s or anything like that.
And in response to this commentary, creators of The Simpson’s—members of the majority, mind you—use an unfunny quip to evoke the political correctness boogie man as a way of dismissing these viewpoints. Never mind the fact that by being in a position of power, there was absolutely no need for them to even acknowledge the commentary; they could have secretly just shrugged it off and kept on doing what they normally do. But nope, they decided ribbing those who dared to complain about being called Apu in middle school was something that just needed to be done.
Can you explain how this isn’t punching down? Despite protests to the contrary, SE Asians are not the most powerful and least oppressed demographic group in this country.
And you say that a number of the critics are white men, but so what? The joke doesn’t draw demographic distinctions; it essentially dismisses anyone who sees problems with the character.
Yep.
♫He was short and fat and rode out of the West
With a Mogen David on his silver vest …
They called him — Irving. Big Irving.
The hundred-and-forty-second fastest gun
In the West.♫ 
Exactly. So therefore it’s not “a joke at the expense of the less powerful or more oppressed group.”
…you seem to have missed you with the face’s exhaustive, comprehensive, and complete rebuttal to your position. I’m not sure how you managed to miss it but I’ll quote it again for you.
I didn’t miss it. I quoted from her urban dictionary link.
Tell me, is there any non-conciliatory way the show could have responded that would not be also classified as “punching down”? As she suggests, were the only options silence or mea culpas?
Practically anything other than “we don’t give a shit about how the group complaining feels - if you can’t take a joke, that’s your problem, baby.”
So says the middle aged white man.
In case anyone was wondering exactly what I meant by people avoiding any perspective that is not identical to their own, re-read this comment.
We are talking about a show made in response to an issue that people from Asia have with their representation on the Simpsons, made by someone with an Indian background, featuring numerous people from India, Pakistan and other Asian countries, and followed by other people with Asian backgrounds - both in the media and in this actual thread - talking about how their own experience is in line with that, and you get to look around the room and only notice that some ‘middle aged white guys’ are also talking about it, so it can be ignored (because you have just as much right to talk about Asian identity as they do).
…so you didn’t miss it, you just pretended that post didn’t exist, then used the next post out-of-context to pretend that is supported your point. Gotcha.
I’m Samoan/Maori, am I allowed to respond to the question?
The creators could’ve written an op-ed that explained why Apu is written the way he is. Use the written word to highlight ways Apu isn’t actually a walking ethnic joke but rather a well developed character. Maybe then humbly acknowledge the reality that while we’re not fully at the point that stereotypical portrayals are inconsequential to certain minority groups, the satire of The Simpsons strives at getting us all to laugh at the silliness in all the many sub-cultures that comprise America. Then say it is unfortunate that insensitive individuals have used a character like Apu as an excuse to antagonize Indian-Americans, and heartily express support with the view that increased representation of SE Asians in TV and movies might counter the insularity that is still prevalent in many parts of the country.
Or they could get a spot on 60 Minutes and say all this stuff in an interview.
Is it that hard to come up with a public relations solution better than the one they used? And to think there are people who are paid to come up with this stuff and here I am, churning it out for free.
Nope. Go back to New Zealand and fix your own problems. I obviously think only white middle aged guys and Indian opinion matters.
Yep. Is the fact that I am an old white guy a way to filter my POV on this?
…go back to New Zealand?
I’m in New Zealand right now. And I’m actually actively working to fix our own problems. So can I answer your question or not?
Sure go ahead. I let the black woman answer, why not you too?