"Shankar said he views the decision to axe Apu as a mistake. "If you are a show about cultural commentary and you are too afraid to comment on the culture, especially when it's a component of the culture you had a hand in creating, then you are a show about cowardice," he said."
"It's not a step forward, or step backwards, it's just a massive step sideways." - From the article
The Simpsons was one of the last bastions of political free speech. Yes, Apu was based on stereotype, but so is Homer, so are MOST of the characters. And ultimately what has made them relatable is is that stereotype is partly based in truth. It's an exaggeration of truth. Apu was a good character, he was kind, and had a lot of side adventures. He was the Ringo of "The Be Sharpes" for God's sake. I hope they give him a farewell story at the very least. He deserves one.
It's easy to think that this is about content (the jokes are pretty hack -- which they are) or consequences of content (they reinforce shitty stereotypes -- which they do). But the truth is, those things are potentially forgivable in the right context.
Instead, there's a strong argument to be made that the bottom line has got to do with authorship and authenticity. The fact is, historically, The Simpsons writer's room has been dominated with white dudes, with very few exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_writers On reflection, having these guys write jokes using Apu feels weird, because it feels like there's ripe potential for covert signalling games, like dogwhistling.
In other words: if you seriously want to save Apu, then maybe they should consider hiring someone of South Asian descent to write the episodes. It's not a hard ask. There's plenty of talent out there from all races. If somebody complains about the quality of the content, you have flak protection. And if it's not funny, then that just means that the new writer totally fits right in with modern-day Simpsons, which is a dead horse, as we all know.
piecub said: Finally, from the same BBC News article, there's this fantastic comment by Sidharth Bhatia (editor of thewire.in) that really gets to the heart of the issue:
"I like Apu [...] The controversy about the stereotyping is classist snobbery - Indians in America don't want to be reminded of a certain kind of immigrant from their country - the shop keepers, the taxi drivers, the burger flippers. They would rather project only Silicon Valley successes, the Wall Street players and the Ivy League products, with the proper accents, people they meet for dinner - by itself a stereotype. The millions of Apus in America, the salt-of-the-earth types, with their less 'posh' accents, are an inconvenience to that self-image of this small group of Indian-Americans."
I think those comments, all by Indians, really illuminate what's going on here. The guy who started the Apu outrage is making a career off of it, and it's because of his own class snobbery that he can't stand the fact the most famous (and beloved) fictional Indian-American on TV is a heavily-accented convenience store owner. In today's affective economy, outrage is a product you can sell. Picking niche things to call out or be outraged by is a form of generating scarcity in an affective economy - there's limited currency in being pro-feminist or pro-gay rights anymore, since women's and LGBT rights have gone pretty mainstream, which means supporting those causes doesn't make you stand out or look as pioneering and virtuous as it did a few decades ago. So to profile yourself and generate attention for your personal brand, you have to pick an identity-based fight that's still pretty niche and on the ascendancy, and that you can make your own.
I'd also add that people like Kundabolu and his supporters trying to tell actual Indians what to be offended by is a form of cultural imposition - trying to enforce contemporary American outrage culture on those backward non-Americans who just don't get it. It's what I call woke imperialism.
It's kind of like the class warfare system they've had in India for the past 200 years or so. "Whiter" (more mixed blood) Indians' dislike of the lower "browner" people who make up a disproportionately larger part of the population. Nothing new here people...
Like I don't get it either, when Homer, Wiggums, and other middle aged white people paint a more pitiful (if not accurate in stereotype) picture of their group identities. Like doesn't that make them a victim too?
Doesn't that make every single one of us a victim of something. So fucking what, that's life. Grow up, accept it, move forward. Like the only thing you have to do in this world to be "good" is don't contribute to other people's suffering. Instead, help them out of it.
I'm sick to death of this politically pushed tribal shit. My group is is more oppressed than yours. Well, being offended by it doesn't do shit to make it any better. Stop choosing to be offended, pick yourself up, and live life.
In that video clip, someone says "You'd be creating a space for violence to happen" and the subtitle says that it's an actual quote from a Yale student. Yes and no - it's been quoted out of context. The original quote was talking about which Halloween costumes are acceptable: https://reason.com/blog/2016/09/14/video-more-crazed-yale-students-attack-s You might think that the real context is still an overreaction, but I think it's misleading to imply that the student was describing nuclear power as an act of violence.
Regarding Apu, I like the character. One exchange that's stuck in my mind is after the volunteer fire department rescued Homer. Rev. Lovejoy: "[..] be they Christian, Jew, or... miscellaneous." Apu: "Hindu! There are 700 million of us."
However, I watched "The Trouble with Apu" and I think it made some valid points. In particular, it talked about representation: when Apu is the only Indian-American character in the series (and the only one that some people would see on TV at all) it gives a fairly narrow view. To be fair, I haven't watched the series in years, but I think the obvious solution is to have extra characters from that demographic group.
Like I don't get it either, when Homer, Wiggums, and other middle aged white people paint a more pitiful (if not accurate in stereotype) picture of their group identities. Like doesn't that make them a victim too?
No.
I'm sick to death of this politically pushed tribal shit. My group is is more oppressed than yours. Well, being offended by it doesn't do shit to make it any better. Stop choosing to be offended, pick yourself up, and live life.
In my experience, the usual refutation of this interesting suggestion is also a plainspoken "no". You have to engage more thoughtfully with the arguments presented to get any traction.
I mean, I see how and why some folks might be tempted to react to contested issues like this one by a name-and-shame strategy -- as if giving particular groups a name, speaking it out loud, and offering a command is going to change their minds. "SJW! Victimology! Clean your room!" As if your foe were Rumpelstiltskin or Pokemon. This doesn't work on the kind of folks you're talking to, and will be used against you.
Nein said: "SJW! Victimology! Clean your room!" As if your foe were Rumpelstiltskin or Pokemon. This doesn't work on the kind of folks you're talking to, and will be used against you.
Everything will be used against you. These "kind of folks" don't reason, they don't listen. They will attack until the entire world is like THIS, and still not be satisfied.
Everything will be used against you. These "kind of folks" don't reason, they don't listen. They will attack until the entire world is like THIS, and still not be satisfied.
That isn't my experience. In my experience, people get credit for giving things the old college try.
Mind you, of course, some people will be horrible loons, but those people don't actually value the things they're talking about enough to be taken seriously. There's not a lot of point in worrying about those people.
On the other hand, some people do have arguments with reasons based on experiences. That seems to be worth caring about.
Perhaps it might help if you think of these sorts of hard conversations as a kind of bargaining. I think you'll find interactions with people you disagree with more rewarding if you try to sympathetically bargain with them about what's worthy of belief, instead of yelling 'no deal' at the outset. Sometimes you have to shout 'no deal', but first you should take a good look at the merchandise they're selling and what they're asking for. If you can find a nice rhetorical "price-point", people will respect it, and maybe even look up to you (as hard and scary as it might seem before you start 'negotiation').
Something something, art of compromise. I'm all about compromise and listening. I'm not about avoiding problems of conflict when something good can come from it.
Why is the 2018 solution to problems to avoid them. We do it with relationships, we do it with culture, the economy, and sometimes even the law. Would this be a far better send off for Apu, than just not writing him anymore?
100% yes. The decision to just drop the character sucks and reeks of cowardice. The contest was a great idea. Though admittedly, hiring a more diverse staff full time would also help instead of just crowdsourcing a single script, the thought that went into the contest was solid.
Nein said: 100% yes. The decision to just drop the character sucks and reeks of cowardice. The contest was a great idea. Though admittedly, hiring a more diverse staff full time would also help instead of just crowdsourcing a single script, the thought that went into the contest was solid.
Honestly, I really thing Shankar himself would be a solid add. He's got quite the credentials...but I feel it would be a step backwards for him at this point.
BTW, second season of Castlevania which he must have sold his soul to get rights for is on Netflix, and it's bad ass! No, I didn't binge watch it all at once...
Simpson's hasn't been funny in 18 years, they might as well be doing this for the hell of a few clicks like especially since it's been a bit since this sort of "kicked off". My opinion on it is the characters fine for the most part, no overt racism like you get in a lot of pop culture but a few lazy stereotypes. Been a while since I watched any modern Simpson's though so I don't know how the characters been portrayed recently. "SJW" bashing's pretty fuckin lazy mind, two fucking crank sides arguing for and against "political correctness" when in reality the issues at hand over race, gender ect. can be handled sensibility an really pretty easlily without the inclusion of bigots on one side and cranks on the other. But people like to shout at each other so whatever
NorthernWAM said: Simpson's hasn't been funny in 18 years, they might as well be doing this for the hell of a few clicks like especially since it's been a bit since this sort of "kicked off". My opinion on it is the characters fine for the most part, no overt racism like you get in a lot of pop culture but a few lazy stereotypes. Been a while since I watched any modern Simpson's though so I don't know how the characters been portrayed recently. "SJW" bashing's pretty fuckin lazy mind, two fucking crank sides arguing for and against "political correctness" when in reality the issues at hand over race, gender ect. can be handled sensibility an really pretty easlily without the inclusion of bigots on one side and cranks on the other. But people like to shout at each other so whatever